mahmoud namazi

The relationship between mind and body has always been one of the most controversial issues in the history of philosophy. In Western philosophy, Descartes made a complete distinction between soul and body but could not explain the relationship between them because there were flaws in his theory at that time. Because of these problems, the school of parallelism emerged, and finally in the twentieth century, the philosophers of the mind rejected the incorporeity of the soul because it did not account for the relationship between the soul and the body. Moreover, physicalists, despite their denial of the soul and their attempts to explain the material relationship between mental states and the body, could not even provide a plausible explanation of this relationship and therefore this problem remained unresolved. However, according to the basic principles of his philosophy (the principality of existence and the gradation of being), Mulla Sadra was able to offer a plausible explanation of the relationship between soul and body according to which the soul and body are two aspects of a single existence and the body has been able to reach the stage of incorporeity through the substantial movement.

The Impact of the Sophistries (fallacies) of Existentialism on the Human Sciences Mental course of existentialism suffers from remarkable fallacies; Fallacies regarding the subject matter of the human sciences, such as taking accidental instead of essential and giving authenticity to the act instead of actor; methodological fallacy or fallacies regarding the methodology of the human sciences, such as employing the presumptive allegory and imperfect induction instead of surly analogy and perfect induction and object base (aiming) fallacy and to mixing target with means; mixing supreme, final perfection with free will which is mediatory perfection.Since the course of existentialism have influenced on learned and thinkers of human sciences, this caused them to look to thoughts, reflections and selections of men through this site. The output and product of this process was that, the human sciences which were going to collect and complete human sciences unless managing and directing correctly and properly the society, they are hindered or detained from this target. As an example, influenced by existentialists’ thinkers, who limited man to a practical experience or and look at man as limited worldly animal, existential psychology neglecting beyond animal nature of man and ignoring wide unacquired and eternal common characteristics of human beings such as perceptions, tendencies and special capacities, couldn’t understand that eternal characteristics of man aren’t extracted from living experience and is in an argent need to an intellectual understanding and comprehending that human being is constructed of two dimensions, a physical one as well as spiritual one. The present paper, participating descriptive and analytic method, while presenting an acceptable definition of human sciences will evaluate the influences of fallacies on subject, method and target of human sciences.

In this paper the epistemic sources of existential philosophies are inspected. To this end, first, we explain briefly the antecedent views regarding the value of human knowledge from ancient Greece to contemporary philosophy and philosophy of the 20th century. During the explanation of this historical survey, the idea of phenomenology/internality as one of the epistemic sources of existential philosophies is observed. In this section, the way in that this reflection transfers from Johann Heinrich Lambert (1728 – 1777) and Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) in modern history, to Jean-Paul Charles Aymar Sartre (1905 – 1980) and Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche (1844 – 1900) and others in contemporary century and existential philosophy is examined. Then the role of mediocrity of this line of thought, i.e., Arthur Schopenhauer (1788 – 1860) as an intermediary student of Kant and direct teacher of Nietzsche is highlighted. Then the position of phenomenology among its homogeneous fields, such as, epistemology, ethics and logic is descripted and distinguished. In this section it will be observed that phenomenology could not be a tendency opposing its homogeneous fields, for phenomenology means to know phenomena, and therefore in this case it is part of knowledge, not opposite to it. Then lexical and terminological concepts, definition, courses and the subject of phenomenology are investigated. In this part we will deduce that it is impossible to give a firm, fixed and definite definition for phenomenology. At the end the theory of phenomenology as a basis of epistemology of existentialism is examined.

The discussion of man as one of the three important pivots of philosophy besides God and the world has always been considered in the world’s philosophical schools. Also, since ancient times, one of the most important questions about man concerns the nature and quiddity of man. Ayatollah Misbah believes that in addition to the material dimension, man has a spiritual dimension, which is the reality and the truth of man, of course. He believes that humans have a common nature and quiddity both in the sphere of desire and attitude and in awareness and cognition. However, Jean-Paul Sartre, the French philosopher, believes that humans have no common nature. Man’s quiddity is not predetermined, and he is free because he has no a priori nature and definition; man is equal to freedom. This paper comparatively examines the different views of these two philosophers on the nature of man.

"Freedom" and its boundaries have long been considered by humans. As a limiting factor for human’s freedom, "responsibility" has also been discussed by philosophers of ethics. Ayatollah Misbah and Jean-Paul Sartre are among the philosophers who have focused on these two issues. Since one of these two philosophers is a Muslim and monotheist, and the other one belongs to the atheistic school of Existentialism, they naturally have many disputes and disagreements about man’s "freedom" and "responsibility". Sartre considers man as equal to freedom, and argues that the only state in which man is not free is when he cannot be free. He also believes in a global responsibility for man. On the other hand, Ayatollah Misbah emphasizes on human’s freedom and believes in a variety of responsibilities for human. Given the great difference between the views of these two philosophers, the present paper examines their views in a comparative way.