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

Boredom or the lack of attractiveness of life experiences has been one of the inevitable sufferings of mankind since the beginning of history, which intensified with the industrial revolution and modernism. Meanwhile, different thinkers have tried to explain the why and how of this phenomenon and the way to overcome it. Modern solutions emphasize taking refuge in the fashion and entertainment industry, diversifying experiences, and creating objective changes outside of the individual's existence to get rid of boredom. But Søren Kierkegaard, criticizing modern and secular solutions, believes that boredom is other than unemployment and a form of akadia, which is an emotional sign of a person's lack of attention to God in performing religious duties. According to Kierkegaard, boredom is demonic and the result of choosing a hedonistic or ethical life, and the way to avoid it is to choose religious life and self-improvement through the desire to create positive moral properties such as patience, perseverance, hope, faith, love and happiness. Also, his other strategy to avoid boredom is to adopt a subjective, aesthetic and abstract view of the phenomena of the world. From his point of view, modern solutions lead a person to an endless effort to change the content of his external world by analyzing and interpreting the feeling of boredom incorrectly. Unaware that the root of solving the problem is changing the inner world through adopting an aesthetic view and poetic revision of experiences.

Jerome Shaffer (1962) showed that Kant’s approach to the issue of existence results in at least two one. According to the first problem, which has been called “the problem of contradiction”, Kant’s approach implies that ‘exists’ is both a real and a non-real predicate. According to the second, which has been called “the problem of triviality”, Kant’s view of existence implies that in the act of predicating, either the subjects cannot have exact objects as their extensions and/or no predicate could be a “real” predicate. The paper starts by formulating these two problems. Then Richard Campbell’s (1974) and Nicholas Everitt’s (1995) views, under the title of “logical approach” are explained. These philosophers, using some logical tricks, such as considering ‘exists’ as a mere “relational predicate”, or introducing a demarcation criterion to make a proper distinction between real and non-real predicates, have tried to interpret Kant in such a way, as to find proper solutions to the aforementioned problems. In this paper, however, it is shown that none of these solutions, which are arguably among the best solutions that have ever been proposed, are successful and satisfactory.

Theoretical optimism and pessimism are followed from the determination of the ontological and ethical relationship between the good and the evil of the world, based on special point of view and a priori or a posteriori arguments for it. However Schopenhauer's a priori point of view was the emphasis on the existence of the evil and the negation of the good, thereby he was a pessimistic, he defined the good as coordination between an individual object and a definite effort of the will. Thus, he defined the evil as absence of such coordination. Although Schopenhauer's approach to the problem of the evil subject to his metaphysics of the will and the representation, it is along with the history of philosophy, within Christian tradition, and in a mutual relation with his life and time situations. From the total of the definitions of the suffering and enjoyment (Satisfaction), happiness and virtue, wrong and right, which he gave us, comes it to mind that Schopenhauer tied and linked each of them to the evil and the good. In addition, according to his view, in spite of the irrationality and absurdity of this worst possible world, one can find consolation in the aesthetic contemplation, tear the veil of delusion through compassion, and achieve salvation by denial of the will.