جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "معرفت بخشی" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

In many works of ancient and contemporary logicians, there is no clear distinction between logic and epistemology, and this causes them to mix up the rules of one with the other. In this paper, I will deal with Gholamreza Zakyani and specially Mortaza Hajhosseini, among contemporary thinkers in Iran. Gholamreza Zakyani claims that contradictory propositions do not yield any results. In this article, we show that this claim is actually a confusion between logic and epistemology. On the other hand, Mortaza Hajhosseini has developed non-standard logical systems based on specific philosophical foundations in the second edition of his book Two Non-Classical Logic Systems, A New Outlook on Elements of Logic. In our opinion, he imposes epistemic principles on logic. Some of the explicit or implicit theoretical foundations of his logical systems are: 1. Contradiction only entails contradiction. 2. A logical theorem only comes from a logical theorem. 3. Knowledge cannot be had of a contradiction. 4. Knowledge of theorems is independent of knowledge of other propositions. 5. Logical theorems are the most superior propositions and since the result depends on the inferior premises, a logical theorem cannot be inferred from other propositions. 4. The contradiction is the most inferior proposition and since the result depends on the inferior premises, contradictory premises can yield only a contradictory result.

Comparison of the views of Wittgenstein and Allameh Tabatabai on the meaningful of religious propositions The meaning of religious propositions is considered by religious thinkers and even devout. Some philosophers of religion emphasize the meaninglessness of religious propositions; While some consider religious propositions meaningful. The early Wittgenstein considered religious propositions meaningless; But in his later philosophy, he has dealt with the issue of the meaning of religious propositions in a special way. Accordingly, religious propositions are considered meaningful only in a particular field and by users in the same field. From Tabatabai's point of view, religious propositions have characteristics that are meaningful and knowledgeable for the general public; Hence, Wittgenstein's method in describing the meaning of religious propositions is different from Tabatabai's attitude. This article answers the two main questions on the subject in a descriptive-analytical method From the point of view of Wittgenstein and Tabatabai, what is criterion the meaningful of religious propositions? What results will we achieve by comparing the thought of the two philosophers? Therefore, after examining the views of two philosophers on the meaningful of religious propositions, their views are compared and the results are stated. Finally, some of Wittgenstein's views on the meaningful of religious propositions are criticized.

The question concerning historicity of religious prepositions and their relations to the language of the Quran, especially in jurisprudential verses has more significant with regarding religious concerns of believers. In this case, we can pay attention to the meaningfulness, giving realistic and epistemic virtues, and historicity or metahistoricity of its juriprudential verses. Investigating in juriprudential verses of the Quran shows its epistemic, realistic and meaningfulness virtues, and that God has used a mixture of special and ordinary language for introducing legal lews, and has considered believers’ mundane and hearafter happiness, benefits and curruptions. Plurality of juriprudential verses of the Quran into worship and non-worship, individual and social dimensions, and the necessity of paying attention to the facts and requirements of the time of descending and next ages, has been led that most juriprudential verses of the Quran have metahistorical implications, although there are a little of its verses that were related to the facts of Arab society of 14 centuries ago that shows their historicity. Meantime, universal virtues of most juriprudential verses of the Quran in linking to other verses, and their compatibility with the facts of believers’s society, shows metahistoricity and meaningfulness that are led to global effectiveness of the Quran in next ages.

The Problem of perception has always been an important philosophical issue since ancient times. Ancient Greek philosophers, particularly Plato and Aristotle, extensively discussed the tools and conditions of perception. Aristotle, for example, explained the external and internal perception of the soul in his two treatises of On the Soul and On Sense and Sensibilia. Among the perceptive faculties of human beings and animals, sense perception holds a particular station. This is because one’s first encounter with the external world happens through this faculty. In order to clarify sense perception, he refers to and discusses the external faculties of the soul (touch, sight, taste, hearing, and smell) and the informative data they provide. He believes that sense perception must be intertwined with the intellect in order to result in knowledge. Muslim philosophers have also discussed sense perception and most of their views are similar to those of Aristotle. Through propounding the soul’s creation of forms, Mullā Ṣadrā distanced himself from Aristotle and managed to introduce a new theory in philosophical psychology. In this paper, the author examines and compares Aristotle’s and Mullā Ṣadrā’s approaches to the problem of sense perception. In doing so, he firstly defines the soul and its faculties and, then, investigates external faculties in the views of both philosophers. Finally, he deals with the important discussion of the epistemological aspect of sense perception.

from the perspective of Paul Tillich, human language is suitable to speak of concrete entities and his normal events of life and it is impossible to such language is used to speak of God "transcendental" and "wholly other". Ultimate concern but with symbolic language is not to express and religious symbols only in the position of speaking of God and the representation of the ultimate foundation of existing are symbolic meaning. Mohammad Ghazali also says that the knowledge of the world of sublimity except through the symbols of the terrestrial world is impossible. his symbolism to provide for the entire visible and sensible world. Both the character emphasize proper understanding of religious symbols of heart union and intuitive knowledge . But with Tillich , it's only field better confrontation with God , lacks the dignity of realism and cognitive , while Ghazali qualified for the symbols such dignity.

In Wittgenstein’s view, religious beliefs use an image; they are commitments which are unshakably everlasting and have the potentiality to give order to whole life. It is hardly based on evidence. Accordingly, they neither receive any assistance from science or philosophy nor receive any damage from them. Nowadays you may observe priests including Don Cupitt who are not realists. This observations stands in sharp contrast with what is held in religious societies. They even contradict with scientific and religious realities which hold religion as a set of images of reality. As Wittgenstein argues to be the case, religious propositions are pieces of evidence about which objective realities are not taken to be very true. These statements are not supposed to refer to anything, rather they are assumed to play a significant role in human religious life.

One of the challenging discussions among the positivists and religious believers in recent decades is the realism and cognitivity of metaphysical, religious and ethical propositions. The truth of this kind of propositions is referred to the philosophy of positivistic science which associated the proof of any reality with experiential research (Here the general meaning of research is meant not the special meaning and is the opposite of proving or falsifying).
What is reality? What is realism and what are its paradigms? What is the logic and criterion to prove the truth of different propositions? Explaining the concept of realism, i.e. to admit the realities which are independent of subject, and mentioning the paradigms of realism in this article, I will criticize extreme realism and will defend particular realism which differentiates between the subject of understanding and the subject, realizes the share of the subject and the object in knowledge proportionately, accepts the comprehensiveness of cognitive bases, divides knowledge to "definite" and "valid" cases given they are evaluable, and believes the perfectability of human's knowledge.
Then I will approve this approach that "any kind of reality has its special logic" and its appropriate "truth condition" and the logic of proving experiential propositions may not be generalized to all propositions, pointing the diversity of propositions and stressing on the concept of reality (considered in each case) and also explaining the criterion of truth and the philosophy of science based on the correspondence of propositions with reality or the outside world, and also considering that any kind of proposition includes a special kind of reality.

This writing will investigate and criticize the theory of "Quran's dreamy language". The main parameters and the bases of this theory and its reasons are first clearly and briefly explained and then it is investigated, criticized and its flaws and problems are explained. Choosing bases such are affectability of Quran from the culture of the time of Quran's descent – or in other words the language of that nation - and posing reasons such as historical narrations, the structure and the text of the Holy Quran and the existence of some contradictions in the Holy Quran, this theory has tried to introduce Quran's language as "the language of dreams" and associate its understanding with the knowledge of dream interpretation. Investigating those bases and these reasons shows that the idea of "language of dreams" is not more than a dream and that the language of the Holy Quran cannot be the language of dreams. The present research uses the method of descriptive analysis and uses written sources.

The mechanism of Qur’an language and its linguistic implications is among the questions which have been a source of interest and challenge to interpreters, theologians, and other researchers of religion. Among the questions that arise here are: Can we say that all Qur’anic verses and propositions are statement of facts? Is it possible to change the metaphorsin some of the Quranic figurative, symbolic, and allegorical phrases into facts and reality or not? In response to these questions, especially in as far as Quranic stories are concerned two main approaches are presented. The first includes unrealistic views and provides some interpretations and ideas of the Quranic stories which empty out the real content of these stories which constitute the external significance of the words of these stories. The second approach includes some views that consider the content of Quranic stories as something connected with past events and occurrences.Using an analytical- descriptive method, the present paper sheds light on and criticizes five views about the first approach and two views about the second approach.

Despite the prevalent opinion that the question of religious language and proposition's meaning has manifested in the beginning of the twenty century; an inquiry in outlooks of thinkers who dispute this subject indicates that this problem is one of the most influential approaches in the history of religious-philosophical thoughts.From the negative theology to the last paradigm, i. e. of Alston's functionalism, many approaches have been introduced. In a macro classification, we may confront with six methods in religious language: three classic methods and three modern ones. Which one of these approaches would include Hegel’s philosophy of religion?The main questions of this essay are:1-Is the problem of religious language meaning considered as the main question in Hegelian philosophy?2-Which approach has been disposed by Hegel in religious domain?3-Supposing meaning for religious language in Hegel, whether religious statements are knowledgeable?4-Despite classifying religion in three types in Hegel philosophy and his concentration on the content and absolute truth in Christianity; could it be possible to consider meaning for religious language in Hegel's thoughts?5-Is there any resemblance between representation (Vorstellung) theory of Hegel and analogical theology of Aquinas specifically in proportional allegory?The main hypothesis of this article is that Hegel considers meaning and knowledge for religious language and we may speak about religion and ultimate (Transcendent) being by human language in meaningful way.

The topics of "religion" and "its language" had been one of the main issues that in recent centuries raised in the field of religious studies in the west.The semantics of divine attributes, wrangle of science and religion, and emersion of philosophical schools like positivism and logical positivism, should to be mention as factors raising the topic of the language of religion among philosophers and theologians.One of the remarkable challenges of contemporary study of religion concerning language of religion is intelligibility of religious propositions; and it is more important than question of meaningfulness or meaninglessness and positivistic attitudes. Wittgenstein presented in this respect two different views in two stages of his philosophical life. In his first conception, i.e. "pictorial theory of meaning", language is considered as picture of fact; while in his second and later view, i.e. "usage theory of meaning", he presented the "theory of language games".This article is going to beside Explanation of theory of language games; give a critical analysis according to primary sources.