یوسف شاقول

In Islamic tradition, man is defined as an intermediary and liminal being, situated between the animal and the angel, with the constant potential for ascent or descent to either of these ontological spheres. This paper endeavors to provide a philosophical interpretation of this intermediary and liminal position of man based on the concept of the imaginative faculty in the philosophies of Al-Farabi and Kant. The central question of this essay is to examine how, in the works of these two philosophers, epistemology serves as a platform for offering an ontological interpretation of man's liminal position. This paper represents an initial exploration of this topic. Given the prominence of the imaginative faculty in Kant's philosophy, particularly in his discussion of transcendental deduction, this paper will begin by tracing the trajectory of transcendental deduction, highlighting the role of the imaginative faculty and its two levels of productive and reproductive imagination. It will then proceed to examine these two levels of imagination (productive and reproductive) in Al-Farabi's thought, without resorting to simplistic comparisons or equating the two philosophers' perspectives. Employing an analytical approach, the paper will seek to establish an anthropological foundation for the imaginative faculty in the philosophies of both thinkers. The intermediary role of imagination in the realization of knowledge in the works of these two philosophers provides the basis for such an endeavor.

Proposing the theory of influx, Francisco Suárez argued that each of the four causes “inflows” its being into the effect. This theory takes the concept of four causes, especially the final cause, to be similar to the efficient cause. By this move, Suárez can account for God’s purposeless and free will as well as His purposeful action through nature. Influenced by Suárez’s theory, Descartes excluded the final cause from his philosophy, which paved the way for the mechanical explanation of nature. It was thus possible for a theory developed with theological objectives to provide the basis for the scientific explanation of nature. In this study, we examine the differences and similarities between Descartes’s and Suárez’s natural teleology. Comparing these two metaphysical systems reveals how two theories may be influenced by the same principles but produce contradictory results. Thus, we will first analyze the concept of the theory of influx. Following that, we present textual evidence to highlight the impact of influx theory on Descartes and Suárez’s natural teleology. Subsequently, we examine how Descartes took causal (viz. efficient) necessity as the only good in nature by developing Suárez’s theory of causality.

In discussing Hume's view of causality, it has been generally focused on its negative aspects and skeptical results. Whereas, according to naturalistic interpretation, Hume's purpose is to illustrate the nature of human beings and to determine the limits of human understanding. Hume's aim is not to philosophically reject the belief in causally connected, but rather to criticize the sort of philosophical thinking that claim to rationalize them. In this paper, the author intends to provide first the naturalistic explanation of Hume’s causality discussion, relying on Kemp Smith's unprecedented interpretation. In explanation kemp smith provided for the functioning of human mind, the origin of the necessary connection idea is an inner feeling that is generalized to reality, and the belief in causality cannot be proved by any argument. The emotional origin of belief in causality, which is not based on reason, is a serious challenge in its acceptance and justification. Therfore the second and main purpose of this article is to examine the mental origin of the necessary connection, then the concept of reason is evaluated from Hume's view to clarify in what sense belief in causality cannot be based on reason.

Modern media are undoubtedly the most important phenomenon of the current century. Since it has affected all aspects of human life, from science, religion, policy, economy and culture to most personal everyday relations; the “lifestyle” of the contemporary man, in a word. Such a wide range of influence has made thinkers to discuss and study the media. These studies has resulted in a new interdisciplinary field of science known as "Philosophy of Media" which explores the media from various aspects. In a approach to media nature, some believe in an independent essence which is individually devisable. Some other, on the other hand, refer to the media as a means and believe that the media lack the authority to direct human life, and it is the man who determines how to use media, instead. This paper aims to study Heidegger and Postman points of view about the media. Both thinkers are considered to be essentialists who have commented the media from technology aspect and emphasized on self-awareness to encounter any technology, including media, in order to get rid of contemporary crisis.

Although Bakhtin and Hegel's ideas are not very clearly related at first glance, and especially since Bakhtin is critical of Hegel and his dialectical method in his explicit statements, yet, Bakhtin's principles let us have an intertextual reading of his texts and his dialogism, as a framework of his thought, based on Hegel's dialectic. This intertextual reading consists of three parts: In the first part, the dialectical moments, which are "in-itself", "for-itself", and "in-and-for-itself" are identified in Bakhtin's dialogism. The second part is devoted to a review of Bakhtin's dialogism with the help of the logical concepts of "universal", "particular", and "individual" from Hegel's philosophy. In the third part, Bakhtin's claim that Hegel's dialectic is monologic is examined. As a result of this intertextual reading, although Bakhtin's hidden dialogue with Hegel is revealed, this dialogue does not yet mean that his thought is in complete agreement with Hegel's..

Hegel, a German philosopher, and Bakhtin, a Russian literary critic, are the two thinkers who have placed the novel within the framework of their contemplation and have focused on the element of self-consciousness in the novel. In Hegel’s philosophy, in the course of the Spirit’s development towards freedom, the novel is the highest manifestation of the Spirit in artistic form, where the Spirit reaches one of the highest levels of self-consciousness. Moreover, due to its origins in the romantic era of art, the novel has heroes with self-consciousness. Bakhtin views self-consciousness in the novel from two perspectives: one is where he introduces the novel as a kind of self-conscious genre, and the other one is where he speaks about the self-consciousness of the novel’s hero. When Bakhtin introduces Dostoevsky as the creator of the polyphonic novel, he says it is the hero’s self-consciousness that gives Dostoevsky’s novels the quality of polyphony.  Yet, the talk of self-consciousness in the novel intertwines with the talk of homelessness in both thinkers’ discussions. In this paper, we have tried to show the position of each of the two thinkers with regard to this subject, their similarities and differences, and the dialogue between them.
 

In managing the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic, what is most heard is the emphasis on keeping your distance from the others. But whether this spacing could make changes over time in the usual behavioral norms? Could we reconstruct and renovate this various broken rules and norms which like narrative plots had the role of unification?  In this paper, we would analyze the crisis of the relation of the self to the other within this situation. We explain Ricoeur's epistemological approach towards the relation of the self to the other in the light of the concepts of ethics and social responsibility. Then, on the bisis of Ricour's theory of practical wisdom, we try to show some possibilities for encountering the crisis of this relationship in the pandemic situation. By grafting the concept of law onto the ethics through the practical wisdom, we obligate oneself to the order of political institution as an interior command which is the call of conscious. This call is an ethical order from the others within us. It could arise the hope that people and political institutions cooperate with each other to pass the current crisis.

When we encounter with literary texts, works of art and films which are full of the relations of metaphors, narratives and actions, this important question maybe asked that how is their relationship and how it could be related to our understanding? In the present article, we will discuss Ricoeur's ideas concerning this problem.. Our thesis is that understanding in Ricoeur's thought is metaphoric, narrative and actual in nature. The metaphoric character of understanding will be shown on the basis of the "as" structure and seeing similarities simultaneous with differences. In his idea narration and plot are, like metaphor, gathering the differences with similarities and regulating them as unity. Ricoeur believes that narrative innovation with its referral to reality could be the origin of action and indicate the relation of action to understanding. Thus metaphor, narrative and action are the intrinsic aspects of understanding which are closely and fundamentally related to each other. As, In the area of hermeneutics, he extends the concept of text and its understanding beyond just writing, analyzing this theme will inform us the importance of the way of encountering different kinds of texts.

Understanding oneself has been of great importance in various areas of thought and discussed from different aspects. Some thinkers believe that self-understanding is intuitive and others consider it to be reflective and interpretative. In the history of western thought, especially in the areas of hermeneutics and phenomenology, Heidegger and Ricoeur are representative of these two different approaches. From this perspective we entitle their views as ontological and semantics. In this writing, we try to elaborate the ontological view point of Heidegger and the semantic approach of Ricoeur concerning the problem of self-understanding in order to pursue the possibility of any graft between them. For revealing the possibility of this graft, we focus on two aspects; We show that: 1- Self-understanding in Heidegger's and Ricoeur's thought be realized within the common horizons of "time", "language" and "the other", though, through different approaches of ontology and epistemology; and 2- For these three horizons in Ricoeur's definition of them, we can define an ontological foundation within the structure of  dasein.  It seem that this ontological basis can be considered to be at the beginning of Ricoeur's epistemological long route. In this regard, we can graft fundamentally these two approaches onto each other.

In this article, we analyze the basic role of finitude in Heidegger and Foucault’s philosophy. We argue that finitude makes possible Heidegger’s concept of being and the history of being as well as Foucault’s concept of the modernity and the entire history of western thinking in later Foucault. To accomplish this objective, we conduct the following: We analyze the basic finitude in Heidegger’s ontology; We explain “analytic of finitude” in early Foucault’s work namely the birth of the clinic and the order of things; We describe Foucault’s interpretation of Heidegger’s formulation of finitude; We specify the place of partial and relative nothingness in Heidegger and Foucault’s approach to human finitude; We explain that individuality, resistance, truth and historicity are possible by finitude in philosophy of them; And finally, we analyze how Foucault meets Heidegger in passing epistemological understanding of finitude and arriving at practical understanding of self-finitude and outlining the history of being.

Hermeneutical phenomenology is a philosophical approach which is emerged from the compound of two important attitudes in the continental philosophy. Heidegger (1889-1976), who is considered as a founder of hermeneutical phenomenology, makes a conjunction between these two attitudes innovatively. This task is influenced by Husserl's phenomenological requirements concerning the sense and interpretation and his known slogan, toward the things itself. After Heidegger, Ricoeur (1913-2005) who is influenced by the concept of epoche in Husserl's phenomenology, makes such a conjunction in an innovative way. The difference between their views is that Heidegger, in Ricoeur's statement, follows the short route taken for ontological analysis of dasein, and Ricoeur proposes a long detour, starting with semantic considerations within the analysis of symbolic expressions of the human being. The basic thesis for present research is to show that, despite of different approaches in Heidegger and Ricoeur's thought toward this subject, in both views ''understanding'' can be considered as one of the most important requirements of the possibility of this connection. Their common viewpoint about ''understanding'' could be considered as a good reason for this claim. The importance of proving this thesis is that we can then by scrutinizing all the implications of understanding, find a vast area of possibilities in this conjunction that open lots of horizons in hermeneutics, epistemology, ontology and phenomenology which help us toward the way of truth.

The concept of action in Heidegger is related to understanding and projection. What Dasein projects is something like the plot in narration. Although narration is not a word of Heidegger, some commentators have a narrativistic interpretation based on historicallity and temporality of Dasein. In this writing we focus on a different interpretation based on fundamental narrativity of Dasein and its relation to action. Our basic thesis is that there is a mutual dependence and hermeneutical circle between actuality and narrativity of Dasein; They are both equal to understanding and projection, so coexist in Dasein' s existential structure. The aim of our discussion is to show that how our actions can be influenced by the way of our narration and interpretation of our life and self-understanding. The analysis of this influence has a basic role in our understanding of the way different narrations such as stories, films, criticisms and…, could affect our behavior and our self-understanding. We find that the understanding of our situation and possibilities can form the kind of our action; Every action as understanding, can open a vast area of possibilities which nonetheless stay hidden. This circle continues perpetually and extends our world.

This article explains the possibility of forming an authentic society based on "Being and Time." It also shows that Heidegger's understanding of such a society is based on his phenomenological reading of some Aristotelian moral concepts – concepts such as friendship and courage- in Nicomachean Ethics Book. Human beings, both in Aristotle's thinking and in Heidegger's thinking, have beforehand – that is, before any thought, decision, or action- has an existential relation with its peripheral world. Here the meaning of the possibility of forming a community is, in fact, the possibility of transcending "self" and of having the "existential" relation with "other". To explain this point, we attempt adequately to express Heidegger's phenomenological reading of Nicomachean Ethics and the effect that this reading has on the formation of "Being and Time.

This paper is an attempt to show arguably how, and to some extent, Kant's third Critique is more prone than other ones to tackling a problem which can be called transcendental philosopher's main problem, i.e. how it is possible to have rules which both determine the validity (universality and necessity) of our propositions and accord with the changeable facts of our life. In Critique of Judgment, Kant brings up this main problem in this form: how is it possible to reach reliable rules for aesthetic propositions which are not objective? What may enable Kant's third Critique to overcome the given problem is his referring to the concept of common sense which provides an open forum for the construction of more dynamic rules. Therefore, here by focusing on the concept of common sense, I attempt to indicate that how kant in third Critique provides a circumstance prone to resolve the main problem, and also open to two readings followed by Hegel and Wittgenstein in two different ways.

Traditionalism is the belief in the eternal Truth that comes from the Absolute and the Infinite, and is manifested in the traditions for human beings. The term symbol and its derivatives is a key word for traditionalists. The philosophical expression of symbolism can be seen in the Plato's theory of ideas. In Plato's philosophy, the foundation of symbolism is referred to as "the paradigmatic cause". The paradigmatic cause is the idea of an object which the creation is made according to it. Therefore, each symbol represents a supreme truth. The true basis of symbolism is that all beings, in different degrees, are interconnected and in the same harmony, they are aligned with each other. Hence, the symbolism has a supra human essence and is not a contract, and the truth of the object is somehow present in the symbol. Symbolism is the language of metaphysics and understanding the symbolic meaning requires wisdom.

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.

One way for Islamic philosophy and Western philosophy to form connection with one another lies in presenting their questions to one other demanding their answers. Accordingly, in this paper, it is intended to find a solution for Hume's difficulty on the origin of the concept of empirical causality in Sadra`s philosophy. Hume, denying the possibility for perceiving causality, disagreed the objectivity of the concept of empiricist causality. In response to Hume's question, it can be said that, based on the possibilities contained in the texts of Mulla Sadra on knowledge, the relation between soul and body, the human mind in the same level of sensation perceives causality directly and, in another step, with mental analysis arrives at the concept. In other words, contrary to Hume, who denied the rational intuition of causality, based on the possibilities of Sadra's philosophy, rational intuition of causality may be explained. Therefore, in response to Hume's difficulty and along with idealistic explanations such as Kant's transcendental idealism, a completely realistic explanation of the concept of causality may be presented

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.

Establishing an efficient moral discipline depend on the accurate and comprehensive recognition the human nature, as the morality subject, what we regard the human and his nature, is the necessary Precondition to found a moral system: knowing him a wicked creature by nature, or treating him as an existing belonging to both sensible and rational world, which an aspect of his nature appears in any areas.
In the Kant's receiving, human is not a mono-dimension of being, but he is the citizen the both worlds: sensible and rational universes. The human is good as the basis his rational nature, and bad on the basis his sensible nature. So he emphasize, in the Groundwork of the metaphysics of moral: "Now because the world of understanding contains the ground of the world of sense and so too of its laws, we must suppose that in our capacity as members of the World of understanding, we give laws to ourselves as members of the World of sense. And this is what gives us obligations".
The necessity of founding the morality on anthropology-which in Kant's viewpoint is an empirical science in methodology-on the one hand, and the possibility of establishing a pure moral philosophy which is quite free of any empirical element, on the other hand, causes some interpreters doubt whether Kant has really been able to found such a moral system. Therefore the present research intends to consider the anthropology regarding to morality in the Kant's philosophical discipline, in order to reveal the purity of his moral philosophy and also detect the way it bases on the anthropology.

Debates on space and time are generally formed around Absolutism and Relationalism. According to Absolutism space and time are real entities and independent of objects while Relationalists believe that space and time are the relation between bodies. Although Newton and Kant, both claim that space and time are real and independent entities, Newton’s space and time depend on God and Kant’s space and time depend on human’s mind. The aim of this paper is to investigate the relation between God and space and time in epistemic systems Of Newton and Kant in order to pursue the view in which Newton’s account of space and time allows God to be within his epistemic system and Kant’s account provides a way to keep God out of his epistemic system.

This article has tried to examine the ancient Greek tragedy and modern tragedy due to various ideas of Hegel regarding to art and aesthetics. Hegel believed in the ancient Greek tragedy as a drama in which there is a conflict of two issues that are morally acceptable, but at the end of tragedy, the conflict will be solved. So- in accordance to writer’s assumption- on the one hand, we should find trace of classical art’s characteristics in Greek tragedy and on the other hand, the characteristics of romantic art due to the principles of Hegel,in order to separate them into the history of art. it is expected that the romantic art which is recent than classical one, be more complete and superior form of art and so modern tragedy which is recent than ancient one, be more complete and superior form of tragedy. While in Hegel’s view, this is ancient tragedy that have more consistent with the principle of tragedy - or tragedy in general. This essay tries to examine the ancient Greek tragedy and modern tragedy due to Hegel’s ideas, in order to answer the illusion.

Transcendent Philosophy provided us with three ways for dealing with the epistemologically explanation of causality: the first way in the subject of knowledge, the second in the object of knowledge, and the third in the knowledge itself. In the subject, according to Sadra’s philosophy, soul is united with body and its faculties in the manner of ‘status restricting regard,’ but even has an existential unity with it, So that the problem of soul-body duality resolves, and soul connects directly with the world and perceives it. In the object, according to Sadra’s philosophy again, philosophical truths like necessity, causality, unity, actuality, etc. are united with external existence and objective reality in the manner of ‘condensation restricting regard,’ but even they have existential unity, so that the human knowing apparatus directly perceives it. And in the knowledge itself, according to Sadra, the cognition is existential, not quidditative, so that it could connect the knower and known and explain them. According to this substantive change in Sadra’s philosophy, reason directly perceives and intuits rationally the causality in the sensual perception and intuition itself, and in another stage abstracts it.

In this article, it is a matter of expressing (analyzing) the Hegelian reading from Aristotelian ethics under two fundamental concepts, that is, "happiness" and "virtue" and also the implications of this reading. According to Hegelian Interpretation, two above concepts have more social functions than Aristotelian and classical one. Moreover they have also subjective objectify through which Individual and community in dialectical process in a virtual framework can receive the only Good, that is, freedom. Originality and in a sense priority of the political thought in Hegel's philosophical system requires an ethical system that can act beyond Aristotelian moral naturalism and explain external relations and the requirements of social and political life. Thus in Hegel's thought, happiness and virtue have however the unique important such as Aristotle's ethical system, their roles go beyond the education of people. This study demonstrates that Hegel, by employing the two fundamental concepts of Aristotelian ethics, happiness and virtue, in the general framework of his thinking, provides the basis for the transformation of their meaning

This essay wants to consider this critique of Sandel that one introduction of difference principle in distribution of possession which says no one deserves his possessions and endowments in society, so this possessions should be regarded as common assets and all in the society should be share in the benefits of this endowments, is involved a communitarian concept of self wich is more extended owner than individual one. This kind of self can be called communitarian self and contradicts with individualism and deontological liberalism in the view of Rawls, sandel says.Nozick critiques Rawls’s difference principle also. He says that difference principle requires take tax from riches to help disadvantage members of society and this causes that we use benefites of riches’s labor arbitrary and it is to say that we make them slave in this way. It is appearent this action is in contradiction with individual freedom. Nozick belives that because redistributive of asset is not acceptable for liberalism, there is no necessary to based on difference principle to redistribute in society.we should allow anybody to start with endowments which achieves them in a just way.Here with analysis and evaluate of this two objects, it want to be explained the characters of difference principle more than the past.