فهرست مطالب hassan ghanbari

 From ancient times, old stories have drawn the attention of poets and writers from one hand, and the critics and readers, on the other hand. The elements such as character, incident, point of view, narrative, tension, space and so on make this genre distinct from other literary works. Therefore, the analysis of the time and place elements of ancient stories are of paramount importance. The method of the present study is descriptive analytical method. Every story has benefited from a Known or unknown various elements of time and place according to the context, history and culture. By reading any story, the reader is referred to a known or unknown historical and geographical situation.

 The scene (time and place) is the key element being explored in this study. This research is a theoretical study that has been carried out using the library method. Its scope and statistical subjects include four ancient works of fiction namely Totininameh, Darabnameh, Samak Ayyar and Amir Arslan. The research method is descriptive-analytical.

 Although some critics consider temporal and spatial aspects general and vague, nobody can deny the presence of the elements of time and place. But the existence of multiple elements and situations in these stories cannot be denied. Using various calendar and mythological times is one of the common features of these works. From a spatial point of view, although we face a general and vague view. But the geographical scope of these stories is very diverse and includes many regions in the ancient world.

 The results of the research show that all of the stories have time and place. There is no story existing without these elements. Such elements give the stories historical, national, cultural and contextual concepts. But mostly they lack historical and geographical identity. These two elements; however, are general and vague in certain situations. They also show the variety of the time and the place in stories. They do not have an obvious role in advancing the story. From the point of view of time, these works are oriented towards the past and linear. There are many different locations in these works. Like the countries, cities and natural environments where fictional events have taken place.

One of the practical and at the same time very complex issues in the science of Principles of Jurisprudence is the general (ʻām) and specific (khāṣ), which its deep effects are well visible in the science of jurisprudence (fiqh) and law (ḥuqūq). With the development and expansion of the science of Principles of Jurisprudence, various views and opinions have emerged on this issue, one of which is the division of individualizers (mukhaṣiṣāt) into connected and disconnected. Of course, stating separate rulings for each one in some cases, such as the discussion of “extension of brevity,” has become special. A descriptive-analytical method was used in this study. In addition to trying to simplify the content and avoiding ambiguous issues, the author has tried to first present some of the views of the Uṣūlī scholars regarding the disconnected individualizer (mukhaṣiṣ al-munfaṣil), then relying on the intellectuals’ attitude stated the problems of the scholars’ theories and proved that their words in some cases are uncoordinated with the way of intellectuals, finally he concluded that there is no difference between connected and disconnected individualizer and all disconnected individualizers, whether they are in the law makers’ (shāriʻ) words or those are made by the legislator will return to the connected individualizer.

The question examined in this article is one of the most important issues in the contemporary philosophy of religion: If the sentences and propositions used in the scriptures of religions and denominations have the same meaning of the common language or entail a specific, novel meaning.  With the advent of positivistic thought in the modern era, a new perception appeared in this regard, which came to be known as the meaninglessness of religion language. Richard Swinburne is a contemporary religion philosopher who believes that the meanings of theological propositions are the same as common language. In addition to criticizing the positivist view, Swinburne bases his view on logical coherence. In this article, we examine and criticize Swinburne’s logical coherence theory. Our results show that the discussion on the meaningfulness/meaninglessness of the religion language – especially from a positivistic view – revolves around understanding/lack of understanding rather than logical coherence. In other words, in the positivistic view, the claim is that we cannot have a true understanding of the content of religious propositions, and without understanding, we cannot discuss coherence. Of course, we do not intend to defend the positivist approach here, but rather we maintain that the meaninglessness theory cannot be responded via the logical coherence theory.

This article is an effort to show that during the history of philosophy – both in the epistemology and ethics domains – evidentialism based on extreme rationalism has tremendously influenced the true mechanism of the formation of faith in God. In the light of a kind of determinism, it has averted attentions from the role of other functions such as emotions, passions, and especially volition in the formation of faith in theists within the common understanding framework. Among the contemporary thinkers, William James and Plantinga have tried to modify this deterministic approach and revive those practical aspects of the formation of faith that are always forgotten. The salient common point in the theories of these two thinkers are the attention to the practical aspects of faith within the common understanding framework and the emphasis on the significant role of volition – in line with reason – in the formation of faith. This way, it can be observed that the opinions of William James and Plantinga about the way the mechanism of faith in God is formed complete each other.

Max Scheler’s philosophy of religion is, in fact, the essential phenomenology of religion. The core of his discussion of religion is the concept of "Religious Act," which Scheler introduced as a "givenness" in which the divine/holy is given. He believes that "Person" communicates with God in the religious act, and the experience of this communication is unique and irreducible. This action is self-evident, but its self-evidence differs from self-evidence in logic and derives from the phenomenological intuition. According to Scheler, the religious act is fundamental to human existential dimensions. He describes three intrinsic specific features of religious act, which we review in this article. At first, we look at the intuitive understanding and the role of emotion in it. Then, after explaining the concept of the religious act and its characteristics, we examine and evaluate Scheler’s formulation of these characteristics. We argue that the relationship between Scheler’s conception of the religious act and the Divine (whether understood monotheistically or not) is not clear. Besides, speaking of “transcendence” implies an a priori “trans-world.” Finally, Scheler’s method in recognizing the fundamental dimension of the human being is in contrast with the task of phenomenology.

The present article is a survey on Aristotle’s view on reason in two spheres: theory of knowledge and theory of self. In the theory of knowledge, it is explained that, according to Aristotle, the mechanism of knowing has four phases: sense, recall, experience and idea. According to Aristotle, idea is rational knowledge that is derived from the three pervious phases. In this context, Aristotle’s famous saying which reads anyone who has no sense has no knowledge makes sense. In the sphere of self, first the meaning of self from Aristotle’s point of view is explained. Then it is concluded that reason is a power of self which is in charge of the four phases of knowledge. In the end, the passive reason and active reason are discussed in detail and a critique of the well-known interpretation of active reason as reason separate from man is presented.

One of the rare comments about the intrinsic qualities of the natural or the God, the idea of ​​" unity of concept and meaning inherent traits" that the statement of diversity in the works of Ibn Sina and al Ehsaee, it is stipulated. These are based on some specific theoretical principles, including "whether the concept of the trait " and " refusing to different concepts of simple real abstraction " have insisted on the idea that once were analyzed in an independent article. Ibn Sina after the adoption of " existence " as the first necessary trait of excellence, more accurate understanding of the inherent characteristics depend on the existence of God with a concept " negative ", " surplus " or a combination of the two is known. His home Detailed knowledge of positive traits that God knows the truth Mohammedia carrier Flyە traits associated with inherent traits.

Rationality of Faith is one of the most important issues in contemporary philosophy of Religion that most philosophers of religion have discussed it. Alvin Plantinga and Richard Swinburne with theistic approach have discussed this subject. Swinburne with evidentialist approach concludes that religious belief like every another belief can be rational only if it has evidence and of cource theists have evidence for their belives so they are justified and rational. But Plantinga criticizes evidentialism and classical foundationalism. Instead of justification، He uses concept of Warrant and finally concludes that Christian believes have proper warrant so Christians are rational in their believes. In this project I want to survey and compare this two great thinkers ’views. My questions in this project are: 1)what criticisms Plantinga can has to Swinburne approach? 2) Is not Plantinga’s analogy argument a Kind of evidentialism? 3) Way does Plantinga use concept of Warrant instead of Justification? 4) What is difference between Warrant and Justification? 5)Are Christian believes properly warranted? 6