جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « فلسفه های معاصر » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

The aim of the present research is to investigate the philosophical foundations of purposefulness and reason-oriented actions with legal consequences in the light of new findings of neuroscience, behavioral economics and contemporary philosophy of mind. In aim to identify these foundations, firstly, the concept of ultimate reason-oriented purpose in human behavior was analyzed from the perspective of philosophers (from ancient Greece till now) and contemporary neuroscientists. Then, the position of purposefulness and reason-oriented behavior with legal consequences has been investigated. The main question of the research is whether or not a human being performs all his voluntary actions (with an emphasis on legal actions) in a purposeful and reason-oriented way? The main hypothesis of the research is that human voluntary actions, including legal actions, are rationally oriented and due to the realization of a purpose. The findings of the research in the position of rejecting such hypothesis indicate that many voluntary human actions, including some actions with legal consequences, are emotional with limited rationality and the influence of environmental stimuli. Accordingly, there would not be judged by the example of a reasonable person with complete rationality in view law. The proposal of the research is to adopt an approach in which, besides the rational and ultimateistic aspects, the limited rationality of man in calculating and analyzing situations the emotional aspects and the nervous system, and the influence of environmental stimuli in the choice of decision, be paved and human beings never be judges through relying on rationality in all situations with an ideal standard. Especially in sudden events and lacking enough time that it is not possible for humans to process accurately and completely rational in calculating all kinds of possibilities and their consequences and referring to the reasons of their beliefs, preferences and information to choose the appropriate behavior.

In this article, we try to show that contemporary philosophy and its main philosophical currents are rooted in the thoughts of modern philosophers, and the influence of these philosophers is still understandable with ups and downs in the present century, although scathing critiques of modern philosophies. It has been done by contemporary philosophers. In this article, we briefly refer to the role of the philosophical ideas of Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, Marx, Darwin in the development of contemporary philosophies such as poststructuralism, existentialism, phenomenology, and American pragmatism. Understanding the philosophical foundations of contemporary philosophies can be understood directly in relation to the philosophical foundations of these philosophers. We can evaluate the role of these philosophers in contemporary philosophies in three areas. First, we can point to the historical aspects of the thinking of these philosophers and the contemporary reception of such an attitude. Almost

In the Hume period and beyond, through some of his views The Idea has been formed in the minds of some scholars that "the explanation of the way in which ideas or concepts originate is a way or the only way to secure their reality and epistemological validity" That is to say "if we cannot explain how a concept or idea originates, it will lack epistemological validity". By adopting this Idea, the fate of very important issues such as the possibility of Science and Metaphysics is tied to the discussion of the "origin of ideas" and thus this debate has found an extraordinary importance. The trace of this Idea is also, more or less, visible in the Contemporary Islamic philosophy. In this article I challenged this Idea and tried, with establishing some arguments, to show that; the epistemological validity of a concept lies, above all, in the very concept itself and is revealed in its comparison with reality and thus, explaining how concepts originate is not, firstly the only way and secondly the best and the shortest way to attain their epistemological validity, and yet has considerable difficulties within itself. If this claim is true, then it will have very important consequences, Including: 1) Tying the fate of Science and Metaphysics to the discussion of the origin of ideas is wrong and is an epistemological-historical mistake. And so 2) the discussion of the origin of the ideas has no epistemological utility and necessity as some had attributed to it.