علی نقی باقرشاهی

The concept of Logos has undergone a complicated process of development. This term was used for the first time by pre-Socratic philosophers as a fundamental concept in relation to the universal and regulative intellect. Heraclitus granted Logos an original status in philosophy. After him, some other philosophers used this term in different meanings and functions in Greek. In Christianity, Logos turned into a divine power and Christ himself. In the contemporary era, Heidegger used this concept in order to explain his perception of language and its relation to Dasein. In this paper, the authors aim to propound and investigate the meanings and concepts that the Greek tried to express using the term Logos based on available evidence in the history of philosophy in ancient Greece. Next, they analyze Heidegger’s standpoint on this old concept and his interpretation and use of Logos in revealing his intentions in terms of linguistic ontology. After comparing the Greeks’ ideas of Logos and Heidegger’s understanding of this term, they conclude that Heidegger chooses Logos because it allows things to be seen. This is because in his view language is not only a tool for communication but also a revealer of the truth of existents. Therefore, he has paid greater attention to this aspect of Logos.

According to Nagel, from a subjective (internal) point of view, life is unavoidably unquestionable and serious, and from an objective (external) point of view, it is doubtful, unjustifiable, arbitrary, random and non-serious. The futility of life does not mean that life has no value and importance, no role or function is envisioned for it, or it lacks any purpose and goal, but it means that, incidentally, from a mental point of view, life is the most valuable and It is the most important thing there is, but the main issue is that whatever meaning we discover or fabricate for life, that meaning is, from an eternal perspective, arbitrary. Therefore, life is futile, not because, from the perspective of a distant future, it is insignificant or compared to the universe, it is nothing more than a particle and a tail, and it is not related to death, it is destroyed, and it is not eternal. Rather, even if man fills the entire space and time and has eternal life and continues to live eternally next to God as the ultimate goal, the problem remains unsolved, that is, man can Look at your own life and God's life from the perspective of eternity. The present article aims to criticize the key components of Nagel's point of view, i.e., the inevitability of doubt, the inexcusability of life, the irrefutability of the above argument, and the preference of an objective point of view over a subjective point of view.

According to Gilles Deleuze, the problem of duality on the one hand, and the problem of transcendence on the other hand, have created two wounds on the body of philosophy; Spinoza, who, according to Deleuze, is the Messiah of philosophers, with the two miracles of unity of essence and immanence, wants to put a salve and potion on this old philosophical wound. In this view, there is only one world, one essence and one existence, none of which was and is not under the control of an existence outside of it - especially a transcendent force. This existence is not in the sense of being, which is in the sense of being within the permanent that is eternally folded, unfolded and folded again to make our empirical world with a positive and positive approach; The world of individuality, determination and individuality, which are expressed as the states of a single substance and consist of the dough of difference. Deleuze, by assuming a single essence and an eternal difference that repeats itself forever, wants to clear the face of the problem of duality and transcendence, but he does not succeed completely; Because unintentionally, a platform is provided for the duality and excellence of another to be born.

In its confrontation with Western philosophy, the Neo-Vedantian School of philosophy in India had a constructive approach, and Bhattacharya's approach in this regard is considered to be an example of a Neo-Vedantian approach. The present article is an attempt to explore the notion of negation as his metaphysical foundation. Indeed, negation in Bhattacharya's philosophy is rooted in Upanishad's concept of neti neti through which one can attain the absolute. In his view the terrain of negation is the terrain of indetermination, so the absolute should be considered as negation, for any known or affirmative matter may change it into a kind of determined matter. Accordingly, in his view, the only way to achieve the absolute is to follow the process of negation. Moreover, the absolute is understandable only through negation, for its content is not expressible. Yet, it does not mean that it is unknown and unrecognizable. Bhattacharya refers to Kant and Hegel's views and criticizes their views.

In this article, we want to think about the concept of desire in the philosophy of Deleuze and Guattari, and through it, to understand Deleuze's ontology of the concept of "event". In formulating the concept of "desire", they are looking for an answer to the problem of the chaotic world of contemporary man. A world where for its resilience contemporary man seeks refuge in all kinds of ways of escape. Deleuze and Guattari create a new conceptual system centered on the concept of "desire" in order to answer the why of this situation and draw ways to avoid it. In this text, we tried to analyze the concept of desire from their point of view in connection with the concept of "Apparatus" by Foucault-Agamben and Finally, we should approach a new understanding of the concept of the event as its escape from the relativistic postmodern challenge. An understanding that Deleuze included in the concept of "life power" in his last writing and in this context, he offers us a strange and yet familiar view of "life".

Republic and Statesman demonstrate the limitations of the city in distinct yet comparable ways. The first work reveals the impossibility of philosophers ruling, while the second work proves the necessity of the rule of law. Consequently, both dialogues establish foundations for addressing the question of the ideal political order based on its compatibility with the city's nature. However, formulating the best principles for the city falls within the domain of laws. This particular work held significant importance for Leo Strauss, which can be viewed from two perspectives. Firstly, Strauss' last work, "Argument and Action in Plato's Laws," focuses on the study of "Platonic Political Philosophy" and explores the tension between philosophy and politics through the final resolution of the problem. It represents the culmination and complete expression of theological-political thought. Secondly, in the introduction to "What is Political Philosophy," Strauss considers Laws to be Plato's most political work, if not the only one, as it features the Athenian stranger, along with his companions, describing a set of rules for an imminent city establishment. In contrast, Socrates constructs a city in the Republic solely through words and not in practice. Understanding how Strauss interprets Plato's Laws is of paramount importance. To comprehend his approach, we must first become acquainted with his elucidation of Farabi's interpretation of Talkhis-e-Navamis then, delve into his own interpretation to uncover similar motivations.

It has been more than a decade since the term antiphilosophy became popular; A term that Jacques Lacan, a French psychoanalyst, used in one of his seminars, and later Alain Badiou used this term and wrote books about it. Although antiphilosophy may seem to be completely against philosophy, this interpretation is not very accurate. Antiphilosophy is generally against philosophical claims regarding the category of truth. Against such claims that there is a universal truth and it is only in the minds of a few elite philosophers. Therefore, and as the third issue, antiphilosophy considers the lived experience. In addition to these three concepts, other concepts are the focus of antiphilosophy, and this article tries to address the most important of these concepts. Also, the nature of antiphilosophy and its relationship with philosophy are examined. We will also take a look at antiphilosophy in the context of the history of philosophy and see which of the thinkers had antiphilosophical thoughts in this context.

Rhetoric, being among five arts of logic (i.e., Sana’at Khams), is a persuasive yet uncertain art. However, philosophers consider it as a non-philosophical and invalid art. In such a view, this art has no philosophical value and its users seek to deceive and influence the audience in order to attract their attention, so logical speech must be de-rhetorical. The study of early philosophers, especially Aristotle, shows that rhetoric is not one of the branches of uncertain logic, but it is a political tool and is a complementary art in practical philosophy, and because practical philosophy is one of the branches of philosophy, it is also related to philosophy. Plato considered rhetoric to be against the politics of society. Aristotle, also under the influence of Plato, first criticized the common discourse of his time, which relied on the Forensic type and sophistic method. Then, he tries to teach a desirable version of rhetoric for the prosperity of society, considering the necessity of rhetoric in political societies. Aristotle uses enthymeme to relate rhetoric to premises and to highlight its political nature by emphasizing the deliberative rhetoric. This study aims to investigate this proposition in Aristotle’s thoughts, and clarify the political implications of rhetoric.

The present article attempts to carry out a critical examination of Deleuze's perspective on time, which he presents in the form of three syntheses of time. Deleuze proposes each of these times as syntheses with the inspiration of a specific philosopher, but his overview concerns Kant's notion and definition of time. Furthermore, Hume is also the subject of Deleuze's reference in the first synthesis, which is called the passive synthesis of habit. The second synthesis, which is the active synthesis of memory pertains to Deleuze's reference to Bergson. Kant's definition of time as a pure and empty form, the concept of cut and caesura, and Nietzsche's eternal return are used to propose the third synthesis. Our purpose is to present and articulate the distinctive features and attributes of each of these three syntheses, their interrelationship, and a critical assessment of the mechanism proposed by Deleuze. As far as the authors of the article are aware, so far there is no independent research on Deleuze's syntheses of time in Persian. In addition to the works used in this article, at a global level, we can mention the works of (Roudinesco, 2008), (Hodges, 2008), (Lundy, 2017), and (Roberts, 2006). 

In order to carry out this research work, we will use Deleuze's works, specifically difference and repetition, in order to explain his ideas clearly. Therefore, we have attempted to critique and evaluate his views by utilizing descriptive-analytic methods, relying on commentators' views, and utilizing authentic sources and documents. 

The three syntheses of time are actually Deleuze's answer to the Kantian concept of time, according to which time is the condition of all internal perceptions. This means that the relationship between the subject and time is "always" conscious. Deleuze believes that the conscious active synthesis is based on a passive and unconscious synthesis. He calls this synthesis the passive synthesis of habit. Hume explains that our imagination is characterized by the expectation of two phenomena or sequences that always appear together in our experience. This definition describes imagination as a contractile power. Deleuze states that this is not a form of memory, an act of memory, or an act of understanding. Therefore, this process indicates a time synthesis. Time is created only in the primary synthesis that operates on the repetition of instants. The living present is created through the integration of independent and consecutive instants in this synthesis. According to Deleuze, the synthesis is constructive but not active. Deleuze takes the view that the second synthesis, the active synthesis of memory, is based on the passive synthesis of habit. He emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between the foundation and the ground. Therefore, habit is the foundation of time, and memory is the ground of time. Habit is the primary synthesis of time that constitutes the life of the passing present. Memory is the fundamental synthesis of time that creates the existence of the past, which in turn causes the passing of the present time.  Deleuze's account of the third synthesis of time encompasses a range of ideas from philosophy, Greek drama, and mathematics. In the third synthesis, Kant has a revolutionary role, because he considered time as a linear concept, also expressing the gap and fracture that are happened in I through the form of time as a form of auto-affection. Deleuze also refers to Oedipus' interpretation of Hölderlin, in order to clarify the effect that the pure and empty condition of time has on the subject. Hölderlin's concept of caesura is used by him to define the past and future, which are inconsistent and asymmetrical. The concept of caesura finds its mathematical expression in the concept of cut, which was developed by Dedekind, in line with the construction of a merely ideal and static concept of continuity. Deleuze proposes three rules whereby the three major innovations that Kant creates in the notion of time are classified. The first rule is Hamlet's rule that "The time is out of joint". The second rule basically says: “Until today, we considered ourselves obliged to represent the space. Today, it is time to think about time.” The third rule is also from the French poet Rimbaud who says: “I is an Other”. The dissolved "self", God's death, and Nietzsche's eternal return create a concept of time that Deleuze expresses in the synthesis of the future. 

It is important to note that Deleuze takes many different concepts from philosophers, poets, and other thinkers and combines them into an amazing concoction. If Deleuze allows such a thing, then the question will arise that, basically, Can we separate a concept and even a poem from its original context without changing its meaning? We also have to take into account the fact that the type of combination of concepts is not clear. In other words, it is unclear if what Deleuze is talking about is metaphysical, real, or something like a chemical compound. Deleuze insists that these concepts must maintain their differences from each other. If that's the situation, then one must question how, despite their differences, they can come together in the ultimate process.As a result, Deleuze deserves praise for his initiative in establishing or discovering the passive synthesis of time. This was not present in Kant. It should not be forgotten that the use of these different concepts of Deleuze is entirely dependent on a specific interpretation and reading. Changes in the meaning of one of these adapted concepts can lead to serious difficulties for Deleuze's explanation.

Eros, the Greek god of love, in addition to its different meanings in the pre-Socratic mythological and philosophical history, has been used in Plato’s philosophy in different senses. This diversity has misled its interpreters in translating it into erroneous meanings such as love. The present paper examines the meaning of eros in Plato’s two Dialogs of Symposium and Phaedrus and then explores its relationship with philosophy and techne. In the dialog of Symposium, after being used in some different meanings, Eros is used in the sense of the longing and desire for observing absolute beauty, which is the same philosophy. This is because in Plato’s philosophy, the difference between the Idea of the good (philosophy is a motive for viewing it) and the Idea of beauty is mentally-posited. In other words, the Ideas of the good and absolute beauty are the same truth that is viewed from two points of view. Now that dialectics – an activity in which multiple details are recognized from the one and the one from multiple details – is introduced in the dialog of Phaedrus as an instrument of techne, it can be concluded that the Platonic lover, and the philosopher cannot perceive the Idea of beauty (or the good) unless through techne. The major problems in this paper are discussed based on the views of two interpreters of Plato, Gregory Velastos and Martha Nussbaum.

The myth of Gilgamesh is the first text written by man that has ever been discovered, and that's enough in importance; This written text - the flower of writing - introduces the origin of Mesopotamian civilization. But more important than this is understanding the examples of wonder that lead us to the kind of human attitude; They are linked to about 3000 BC! Hermeneutical encounters with this text, therefore, can provide a clear approach to a deeper understanding of this myth. Paul Ricoeur's theory of hermeneutics sees interpretation as a dialectical approach to explanation and understanding, and in his view language can be studied. Ricoeur distinguishes between logical and argumentative thought, which has an instrumental approach, and poetic thought, which is symbolic and metaphorical. Therefore, he looks at myths, rhetoric and narratives and believes that in fact, human imagination, while expanding in the depths of language, allows him to create new words or to combine and present them in a new way to express what is not spoken. Ricoeur, with his particular definition of metaphor, seeks to reveal the effective connection between interpretation and discourse. Because metaphor is that aspect of our experience that is motivated to be revealed; But in everyday language we express the invisible. Based on Ricoeur's approach to metaphor, this study intends to re-read Gligom's myth and gain a newer understanding of it.

There has been a renewed interest in reading Saint Paul from different aspects by contemporary political theology and philosophy. However, being encountered with the sickness of contemporary philosophy and regarding it as sophistry, Badiou turns to Paul as an anti-philosopher, model, and someone who answers the question of ‘conditions of universal singularity’. In this article, the underlying reasons for the importance of Paul for Badiou will be discussed. By reflecting on the intricacies of Badiou’s reading( reactivation of Paul), his approach to problems and goals of event philosophy will be revealed. Therefore, paying attention to Paul’s interpretation as a part of Badiou’s event philosophy project will pave the way for the understanding of Badiou’s thought. On the other hand, by studying this exemplification of Christian history, a light will be shed on how Badiou relates politics to truth and recreates the political figure of the event. In the end, the criticism of his reading of Saint Paul mostly by theologians will be examined and responded.

For the establishment of the fundamental ontology, early Heidegger disregards the vulgar understanding of time and analyzes temporality. He believes that the vulgar understanding of time is the degeneration of the world-time, and the world-time itself is the degeneration of temporality. In Being and Time, Heidegger interprets temporality as the ontological sense of care. Here, this three-part phrase is relied on to interpret temporality in the thought of Heidegger. The ontological counteracts the ontic. The ontic investigation is one that considers the entity present-at-hand and determined. But the ontological investigation focuses on the how-being of an entity that is always anticipating itself by projecting itself upon its possibilities. The sense is not what is revealed at the end of the understanding act; but is what wherein the understandability of something maintains itself, namely, the condition for the possibility of understandability of a thing. Care implies what gives totality and unity to the structural aspects of Dasein. Care, which is the sense of Dasein’s being, is constituted through three items including existence, facticity, and fallenness. Temporality is the ontological sense of care; namely, the condition for the possibility of its understandability. Heidegger analyzes authentic existence to explain this word. The ontological structure of authentic existence is the anticipatory resoluteness towards death. The resolute existence that anticipates to death shows itself in the three ecstasies futurity, having-been, and making-present. Each of these three ecstasies is respectively the sense of one of the items of care. Hence, temporality in its unity is the ontological sense of care.

The present article is an attempt to explore Allameh Iqbal's view of personal and impersonal God. In his view in Islam God is considered to be both personal and impersonal. This view of God can satisfy both religious tents and philosophical questions of philosophical as well. Under the influence of Hegel, Mc Taggart holds that ultimate reality is absolute so it cannot be called by a self, but Iqbal disagrees with this view of Hegelian philosophers to the Ultimate Reality. Iqbal also disagrees with the traditional arguments for proving God's existence for these arguments fail to. In this regards he refers to the notion of intuition and holds that by intuition it is possible not only to unravel the nature of world and man but also realize God. Intuition is a term that is approved even by certain Western philosophers like Bergson as well. In Iqbal's view this path even is approved by the Quran. Accordingly, Iqbal seeks to substantiate it and used the term "self" for man and "infinite self" to God.

Mathematics has always been considered to be among certain sciences; however, the objects of mathematical knowledge have continually occupied the minds of mathematicians and philosophers of mathematics. The theory stating that the objects of mathematics consist of a number of certain immaterial and separate affairs which are independent of the world of the human mind and thought has been attributed to Plato, and several realist philosophers who, in spite of all their differences, have been called neo-Platonists. Commentators of Plato have failed in providing any clear and consistent interpretation, whether in terms of ontology or semantics, of his philosophy of mathematics, which has resulted in some misunderstandings in this regard and some ambiguity in his whole philosophy. When completing his PhD dissertation at the University of Bristol, Paul Pritchard presented an interpretation of Plato’s ontology, according to which the objects of mathematics are the same sensible things. Here, the allegory of the divided line has been interpreted differently, and the existing ambiguities have been removed. In this paper, the authors have examined this interpretation and compared it with other interpretations of Plato’s ontology of mathematics. They also refer to its effects on Plato’s philosophy of mathematics in general and reveal that, unlike its traditional interpretation, his philosophy of mathematics does not conflict with Benacerraf’s identification problem. Moreover, the authors demonstrate that, based on Mulla Sadra’s arguments, the theory of Ideas is a completely consistent theory in terms of ontology and, thus, Plato’s philosophy of mathematics is a consistent body of philosophy.

In his Republic, after denouncing Athenian poetry and poets in certain sections, Plato decrees their deportation from his Utopia in the 10th book of the same work. At the same time, however, Plato’s own works abound in poetic concepts, and wherever he talks about poets, he uses a language which is both hesitant and respectful. Accordingly, this paper is intended to provide some answers to the following questions: which truth underlies such a paradoxical attitude? How could Plato’s approach to poets be explained? What is the main object of Plato’s criticism: Athenian poets’ use of poetry or the essence of poetry itself? Or, should one seek for the response elsewhere and perhaps find the problem in the addressees of poetry? The authors believe that, if one agrees that one of the important elements of poetry in Athens was to believe in an epistemological aspect for sophist teachings, and if one assumes that, beyond ontological and epistemological discussions, Plato’s first problem is basically politics and the establishment of an organized political system, it can be concluded that, in this Utopia, the Athenian poetic tradition and its specific features are not consistent with Plato’s political ideas. The reason is that if one considers paedeia or a system of education to be necessary for the establishment of Utopia, if the intended paedeia is based on mythology and sophists’ teachings as its epistemological origin, it will be doomed to failure from the beginning. Moreover, one can approach this problem from the epistemological aspect of Plato’s philosophy and speak of the distinction between aesthetic beauty, as we know it today and as it is manifest in works of art, and the Ideal beauty or the same truth, as intended by Plato. In his view, the aesthetic view of beauty is a subcategory of Ideal beauty; hence, by the word “beautiful”, he does not merely mean the values that are involved in today’s concept of aesthetics. Rather, he has ethical and epistemological values in mind as well. Therefore, the discussion of the dismissal of poets from Utopia must be revisited under the category of general and particular senses of beauty.

Vedanta is the most original Indian philosophical school which has borrowed its basic principles from Upanishads and emphasizes non-dualism. Indian historians have divided the history of this school into three periods: Pre-Shankara, Shankara, and Post-Shankara. In the first period, some figures such as Badarayana and Gaudapada emerged and laid the foundation for Vedanta philosophy. In the second period, Shankara expanded this school and played a significant role in spreading and disseminating it. During the third period, Ramanuja presented a different interpretation of non-dualism and the notion of Ultimate Reality based on his own critical views and pushed the borderlines of this school even further. Generally speaking, each of the founders and interpreters of Vedanta philosophy explained and expanded this school based on their own philosophical tastes and views and tried to enrich it more than ever before. However, the important point here is that all of them were unanimous regarding the notion of non-dualism. Of course, they had some serious disagreements concerning certain issues, which can also be seen among their advocates. Some of the contemporary Indian thinkers, such as Rabindranath Tagore tried to reconcile their ideas with each other in some way. Vedanta has also influenced contemporary Indian philosophers and artists to such a great extent that their worldview has been completely affected by this school. In the present paper, the writer traces the historical development of the school of Vedanta and explores its relationship with non-dualism.

Hiduism is the religion of the majority of Indians. However، there is a controversy among the orientalists and Indian scholars concerning the nature and origin of Hinduism. It surely possesses authentic sources such as Upanishads، which is the main source of Indian philosophical and mystical schools. In Upanishads، knowledge is considered to be the only path of salvation. Knowledge here refers to the knowledge of ultimate reality، namely Atman and Brahman which can be described only through negative attributes. Atman and Brahman are two sides of the same reality. There is difference of views among Shankara and Ramanuja about this issue.

Of all the Vedantic school, that of Shankara has the most importance and allocates the largest amount of literature in the form of commentaries and treaties to itself, so that it would not be inappropriate to call Shankara the most influential Indian philosopher. This article is an attempt to shed some light on knowledge and reality as viewed in Vedantic school of Shankara. Since Shankara is the main exponent of this school, Vedanta philosophy is associated with his name. Owing to his intensely loyalty to tradition and innovative nature of his works, he fascinated and inspired the contemporary Indian thinkers more than other Vedantins. Shankara's Vedanta is based on Advaita (non-dualism) philosophy, according to which ultimate reality is one (unqualified monism), though it appears in many individuals. His non-dualism is traceable to Buddhism, and the latter also is believed to have its origin in the Upanishads. Shankara developed his views about knowledge and reality through his commentaries on the Bdarayana’s Sutras (aphorism). He rejected all types of dualism and proposed a metaphysical, epistemological, and axiological non-dualism. It is said that he was under the influence of Buddhism, yet he was a severe critic of Buddhism as well.

Radhakrishnan is one of the prominent Indian contemporary thinkers. He is under the influence of the Vedanta cult; yet there are certain elements of Hegelian idealism, Whitehead and Schleiermacher’s philosophy in his views. Vedanta school is the most perfect and most traditional school of philosophy in India that majority of contemporary Indian thinkers such as Vivekananda, Aurobindo, and Rabindranat Tagore inspire from it. The teachings of this school have rooted in Upanishads which considered as the most important source of Indian philosophical and mystical schools. Vedanta school is based on Advaita (non-dualism), and Shankara and Ramanuja have presented different interpretations from it. Radhakrishnan in some of his works was under the influence of Shankara and in some others under Ramanuja’s influence; although sometimes he tried to reconcile them.. ..