فهرست مطالب ali naqi baqershahi

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 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".

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.

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.

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.. ..

The concepts of Brahman (Impersonal God) and Ishwara (Personal God) constitute the central teachings of Shankara’s metaphysics. He approached these issues with reference to Vedantic school of thought as rooted in the Upanishads. Of all the commentators of the Vedanta school, Shankara and Ramanuja enjoy a prominent place; however, this article is limited to the former’s approach to the concept of Brahman and Ishwara. This is because Vedanta is mainly associated with Shankara’s name. Meanwhile, reference has been made to certain relevant concepts such as Maya and jiva in order to clarify the various dimensions of the concept of Brahman. According to Shankara, Brahman is identical with pure being, pure consciousness, and bliss. Brahman is ineffable and can only be described by its negative attributes. Yet, immediately after describing Brahman conceptually, Maya makes him appear in the form of Personal God. In Shankara’s metaphysics, Brahman as the macrocosm and Atman as the microcosm are the manifestations of Ultimate Reality. In Shankara’s view, Brahman and Atman possess various levels which are compatible with each other. At the highest level, the knower and knowledge, the subject and object, and the perceiver and perceived unite with each other and comprise a single reality.

The present article is an attempt to shed some light on the Neo-Platonic elements of two philosophers of the world of Islam and the world of Christianity—Murtaąå Muĥahharì (1919-1979) and St. Augustine (354-430 A.D.)—in dealing with the problem of evil. The former was a contemporary exponent of Islamic philosophy whose point of departure was Mullå Ģadrå’s al-Ĕikmah al-muta‘åliyah (Transcendent Theosophy). In his intellectual life, he sought to resolve the religious and intellectual problems of contemporary Muslims, and even approached theological issues in a rational manner. The latter, one of the most important Christian philosophers to have ever lived, sought to give Christianity a firm intellectual foundation in Neo-Platonism, and inspired the West for centuries.It is well known that the problem of evil is at the heart of theodicy, an issue that concerns not only the world, but also the conception of God. The central question may be stated simply: how can both God and evil exist at the same time? To find a solution to this problem, Augustine at one point in his life took recourse to the Manichaean worldview, and considered evil as a separate entity from the Good, with a separate source. Later on, however, he became attracted to Neo-Platonism and came to consider evil as a privation of the Good. In Neo-Platonism, the Good is equated with Being, while evil is associated with privation of the Good, and thus ‘non-Being’. With reference to Neo-Platonic ideas, both Muĥahharì and Augustine considered evil as a privation of the Good and affirmed the identity of Being and Goodness. Apart from Neo-Platonic ideas, they also independently developed their own ideas with regard to the problem of evil. Augustine approached Neo-Platonism with reference to Christianity, and in certain cases disagreed with Neo-Platonism in order to show his commitment to Christianity. Nevertheless, some Christian thinkers undermined Augustine’s claim to be grounded in the authority of Scripture, and insisted that his Neo-Platonic philosophy has nothing to do with orthodox Christianity.