جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « امکان معرفت » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

Kant, the famous German philosopher, has tried in his important book, Critique of Pure Reason to give the conditions of possibility of universal and necessary knowledge and therewith Specify bound of understanding. Synthetic a priori judgment could only able, on Kant’s viewpoint, if the pure forms of time and space determine given representation on intuition. He try to show that pure forms of understanding are known as conditions of Objective empirical judgment. On his viewpoint, all conditions of recognition are also limited to the transcendental unity of perception. Kant’s theory of transcendental I and his explanation for the conditions of possibility of knowledge put matter to Compare with the doctrine of intuitive knowledge and theory of the Appearance of a perceptions plurality in the philosophical system of Allameh Tabatabaei. He knows the conditions of possibility of every knowledge, even theoretical one, dependent on ontological unity and connection of subject and object. He is the first philosopher in the tradition of Islamic Philosophy who give a creative explanation for the appearance of a plurality perceptions and Circumstance of obtain basic course concepts. This article is going to describe and interpret mechanism of possibility of knowledge in two philosophical system of Allameh Tabatabaei and Kant

The skepticism, which is believing in the impossibility of objective knowledge, has reappeared in different paradigms of the history of philosophy with a different faces. Although the skepticism itself has produced a lot of destructive results, and at some points in history has had a tremendous negative impact on philosophy, it must be acknowledged that the it also helped philosophy in having a more thorough understanding of epistemology. One of the criticisms that ancient Greek skeptics have raised which helped the establishing of skepticism is the  "impotence of sense and reason of perception". Mulla  Sadra has tried to address this criticism of ancient Greek skeptics; he has entangled the error of the senses into common sense and solving the error of imagination with wisdom. He also solved the problem of reason by referring to the "principle of non-contradiction" and the recurrence of the acquired knowledge to knowledge with presence. In the next step, the authors discussed the Tabatabai’s view the status of error and the "principle of non-contradiction", and ultimately analyzed the responses of Mulla Sadra and Tabatabai.

Although there is no disagreement on the desirability of perfection, there are disagreements – both in practice and in theory – as to the notion of perfection itself. Most of these disagreements are rooted in the bases of discussion on human’s ultimate perfection. This disagreement on bases of ultimate perfection has led to the emergence of various ethical schools. Among the most important of these bases are the epistemological bases. In the present article, we deal with the discussion on epistemological bases of perfection in Ayatollah Mesbah’s view based on which knowledge is a possible and even a realized affair and can be proved with a certain explanation. Besides, the devices for knowledge are not restricted to reason and senses; rather, revelation and intuition are among the main devices of human knowledge. In addition, according to Ayatollah Mesbah’s view, there is a necessary relationship between action and the goal of morality.

Among all contemporary epistemological issues the topics of the possibility of knowledge and its nature are two significant ones. Transcendental Philosophers and Cartesians both admit of the possibility of real knowledge. Defining real knowledge, they divide it into different categories. Other important issues in comparing the epistemology of these two groups concerning the possibility and nature of knowledge include: skepticism, division of knowledge into knowledge by presence and knowledge by representation, discussing conception and judgment and their varieties, using logic particularly syllogism and its relevant issues as a method for attaining knowledge.

Resorting to the noble QurÞÁn in resolving and answering the challenges presented by the humanities, in particular philosophy and epistemology, opens up new vistas in these sciences. This article endeavours to discover some of the responses to one of the most important topics of epistemology, namely, the possibility of knowledge. During the course of treating one of the meanings of ‘knowledge’ in the QurÞÁn and its correspondence with acquired propositional knowledge, the paper applies itself to covering the diverse views of philosophers with regards to actuality and the possibility of its cognition, before moving on to the QurÞÁnic viewpoints. The study concludes by highlighting the emphasis that the QurÞÁn lays on the principle of actuality, the possibility of human knowledge of that actuality, and the negation of both scepticism and relativism in its general sense.

This article will try to analyze intra-religious cognitive discussions from an intra-religious perspective. The first question mentioned is what religious scholars mean by knowledge and how much is it rational. It is said in this section that it is necessary to differentiate between common religious people and religious theoreticians and scholars. In the next section, we will discuss the possibility of achieving knowledge, as the Islamic scholars say, and will review the different ways of achieving knowledge. Another discussion is the obstacles and factors effecting knowledge from the perspective of religious sources; for example piety has a great effect on achieving knowledge and sensuality is a big obstacle. The following points are briefly mentioned as well: knowledge has different levels; there are some luminous curtains in the higher degrees of knowledge; and the lower degrees of knowledge are curtains for the higher degrees.In the next section religious statements are discussed in two parts: beliefs and jurisprudence. It is said in the belief section that all the statements should be scientific. It is the same in the jurisprudence section except a few cases which are excluded. The important point is that the author believes jurisprudential statements have two aspects: belief-wise and jurisprudential; and the first one should always be scientific. Considering this point has some good results.