جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "رئالیسم انتقادی" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

How mental perceptions and representation of the world located in the world of the mind is an epistemological question that has occupied the minds of thinkers throughout history. Based on the answer to this question, two main currents were formed, one of which insists on the correspondence of mind and object to each other, like the reflection of an image on a mirror, and the second current considers human knowledge to be entirely a construct of the mind, which does not have a way to the real world. perceptions to be the product of the interaction between the mind and the external reality. Although critical realism assumes the external world to be independent from the cognitive agent's mind, it does not consider the perception of the external world to be equal to the external world. For this reason, Warsi considers his criticism of the world as necessary to achieve an authentic knowledge. The present article, while accepting some claims of critical realism, shows that the critical approach to the problem of truth cannot be the basis and criterion for all propositions.

Social emergence is one the most important problems in social science that the way it is answered affects the results of social studies and policies. The complexity of social emergence conception has caused a variety of definitions. This article seeks to define the robust social emergence conditions, using the philosophy of mind conception such as subvenience, wildly disjunctives, and multiple realization. Different approaches have different challenges in satisfying robust social emergence conditions. These challenges could be formulated in three problems i.e. realism, top-down causality, and mechanism. This article aims to analytically criticize how critical realism approaches these problems. Critics believe that critical realism faces two sort of difficulties in satisfying robust social emergence: the first, the independence of structure from agencies that leads to reifying and the second, that ontological and causal emergence conflicts with subvenience. It seems the first problem could be resolved by employing the unrestricted mereological composition conception, and the second by the fact that subvenience do not necessitate ontological dependence.

Maritain, as one of the neothomist philosophers, believes in the return to Thomas Aquinas’s views in all philosophical fields. One of the topics of interest to Maritain is modern epistemology, which has not only been isolated from metaphysics but also prioritized and is the first topic raised in the works of Descartes. Maritain argues that this primacy has led to idealism and the perversion of philosophy, since epistemology is one of metaphysical issues and should be raised after metaphysical premises, in particular ontology. Maritain presents critical realism, which is based on reality and existence as rational truth that expressed in sensory terms, against modern philosophers views. That is to say, the sense and experience of human being is the first encounter with the external world, but that reason dominates all levels of perception and validates human perceptions, intends the existence of the object behind its empirical appearance. The most important comprehension of reason, then, is the existence which beside quiddity forms  basic structure of any object. Accordingly, all modern epistemological views are either realistic or idealistic, but are rejected as idealists, because they ignore the role of external reality or “thing” in shaping mental “object”.

Richard Dawkins, emphasizing maximum scientism, argues for the conflict between science and religion. By proposing the improbable argument, he has viewed the existence of God as being of the least possiblity, and finally, inferred atheistic belief. In contrast, Alister McGrath dismissed Dawkinschr('39')s maximum view of scientism as incorrect and, using critical realism and the psychology of perception, challenged his atheistic view. The point of leading research is to evaluate and measure this encounter. In this study, we have used analytical and library-based method and technique. The research shows that although the analysis of McGrath from a theistic point of view of the universe as an interpretive framework solves Dawkinschr('39') alleged conflict between science and religion, it still cannot be away from epistemological relativism. At the same time, some of his critiques on the proof of improbability are not without weakness.

Scientific interpretation that experiences its perfection in the age of postmodernism, in addition to specific methodology and valid criteria, in proportion to the development of human knowledge, especially in the field of philosophy of science, needs to explain the actions of the most influential new views of philosophy of science on the principles and rules of this interpretation. Is.The achievement of the article, which is written in descriptive, analytical, critical and comparative methods, after critically examining Barbour's theory of "critical realism" with the focus on Ayatollah Javadi's views, explains the nature of his actions and the degree of compatibility of his theory with the principles and rules of scientific interpretation.Limiting the principle of causality to the phenomena of nature; The precedence of empirical knowledge over religious knowledge; Equality of methodology of science with religion; That no "final theory" can be considered the "ultimate truth" and that the ultimate truth of nothing can be understood; Skepticism and sophistry as a logical consequence of the "relativity of understanding"; These are views of Barbour that are inconsistent with the philosophy of religion and the foundations of the scientific interpretation of the Qur'an; However, his efforts to de-escalate the tension between science and religion, which paved the way for the unity of science and religion in the West, are compatible with the interests of religion and the Qur'anic teachings. The Qur'an is permissible to cite empirically convincing propositions to the Qur'an in the form of "probable citations."

The realization of knowledge in the form of naïve realism and critical realism has been one of main concerns of philosophers. Correspondence theory, which is considered as theory of truth in transcendental philosophy (Al Hekmah al-motaaliya), can be interpreted as either naïve realism or critical realism. Problems of transcendental philosophy are presented in a way that evidence can be provided for both interpretations. Given the incompatibility of the two interpretations, only one should be chosen as Mulla Sadra's final theory. Given that within the framework of transcendental philosophy Naïve realism faces many serious criticism and problems, and that Mulla Sadra's final theories and strong evidence provided by transcendental philosophy are more consistent with critical realism, it seems that it is more appropriate to consider critical realism as Mulla Sadra's final theory.

As a controversial notion, realism has always been a major concern of philosophers of science and experts in the field of sociology of scientific knowledge. The main aim of this article is to review and study the two different approaches of Bhaskar’s concept of critical realism and Latour's realism.
Bhaskar argues that there is more ‘what is there’ than ’what is known’; there is more power to the use than application of power. Appealing Constructivism, Latour, in the opposite side, emphasizes making scientific facts thorough the process of scientific activity. In this paper, Latour and Bhaskar's main claims are illustrated in details, and also through a comparative study of their ideas, congruent and different aspects of their thoughts will be described.

Roy Bhaskar, one of the pioneers of critical realism, tries, through a critical stance, to make a scientific study of social life according to the meaning which natural sciences. He insists on the existence of the “intransitive side of science in social sciences” like natural sciences in order to prove naturalism. He also considers that the main part of man’s social life is surrounded by theoretical constructs. Therefore, the present paper, using an analytical-intellectual method with the aim of clarifying the ability of intransitive side explain and analyze theoretical constructs in social science, focuses on the status of theoretical constructs in the intransitive side of social sciences. Probably, Bhaskar strongly emphasizes on the relationship between the agent and structure in order to prove the intransitive side. The research findings show that the structures with the features stated by Bhaskar are theoretical constructs and dependent on agents and they are wrongly considered as real and independent things, and that the structures which have features are incompatible with intransitive side.

The present paper examines and comments on the anthropological and methodological foundations of two paradigms of positivism and critical realism and their influence on one another. An argumentative-demonstrative method is used in this paper to demonstrate the idea that the components of each paradigm in an epistemic system are logically related and the acceptance of every component necessitates the acceptance of the other components. Since the paradigm of positivism has a mechanical attitude about man, it adopts a model taken from natural sciences in its methodological foundations, appeals to a kind of descriptive method as a reliable method free from value and considers quantitative method to be sufficient. On the other hand, since the paradigm of critical realism considers man to have a social identity, it considers the presuppositions agreed upon by individuals in communicative action as one of the important elements of its methodological judgment in its method and since it has a realistic concern, it considers practical adequacy as another element of its methodological judgment. For gathering the data, this paradigm combines quantitative and qualitative methods and considers that neither of them can be sufficient by itself.

There are different ways to establish the idea of the possibility and necessity of having Islamic management. One of the most appropriate ways is to refer to philosophical teachings. The present paper seeks to study Islamic management through discussing the idea of possibility and necessity in philosophy. To this end, first the possibility of having an Islamic management in terms of affirmation and realization is reviewed. Then, the necessity of having Islamic management is discussed through criticizing the positivistic methodology and reviewing its epistemic system based on critical realism. Finally, the capacities of transcendent philosophy are examined and critical realism is criticized for establishing a methodological foundation for Islamic management based on the principles of Șadrian philosophy.

Recognizing the influence of religious teachings on the human sciences in the three fields of objective, method, and problems, the present article divides the human sciences into descriptive and prescriptive ones, and deals with the role of eschatology in the methodology of prescriptive human sciences. Criticizing the prevalent methodologies in the study of the human sciences, including positivism, falsificationism, historicism, Dilthey’s hermeneutics, and critical realism, and stating their incompatibility with believing in the hereafter, the article studies the methodology consistent with the idea of eschatology, and concludes that in studying prescriptive human sciences, it is necessary to benefit from revelational methodology as well as rational one.