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

Plato’s different and somehow contradictory views on etymology has long resulted in debates. In Cratylus and some other works he criticized etymology as a philosophical method. He denied any resemblance between things and their names so that the analysis of a name would not discover the essence of the thing. Yet he has practiced in his other works some etymological analyses which seems to be in opposition with his previous view and therefore there has been the debate if Plato at all believed in etymology as a philosophical method. Cratylus is generally believed as one of the so-called middle dialogues, i.e. those Plato wrote in the second phase of his philosophical career, while the aforementioned etymologies appear in the late dialogues. It shows that after Cratylus Plato in his late dialogues has changed his mind regarding etymology and its epistemological worth and subsequently inclined/tended to it. Plato disagrees etymology in Cratylus since he thinks the greek name-givers have failed to gain the truth about things so that the names they made do not correspond to the things themselves. The name-givers, called usually as law-givers by Plato, are the same ancestors who have founded/stablished the greek laws, norms, traditions and the opinions. In Cratylus Plato is suspicious to the knowledge of greek ancestors and his disagree with etymology is one of its consequences. However, in his later works because of some unknown reasons he changes his previous view and praised the ancestors’ virtues and confirmed their superior knowledge. Simultaneous with the change, and opposed to what we find in Cratylus, in later dialogues it is said that the greek names in all aspects correspond to the objects and this seems to be, according to Plato, due to name-giver’s knowledge of the things. Thus the reason why Plato has asserted different views on etymology seems to be that he has changed his view regarding the ancestors. In this article the passages with the subject names, namegivers and ancestors will be collected and analyzed.

The question concerning names and things discussed in Cratylus, repeats the old and fundamental philosophical subject of "phusis" and "nomos"; an essential issue which may be considered as the ground for many theories in Greek philosophy. The question In Cratylus is how relates a name (ονομα) to its object or thing (πραγμα) to which the name refers. Are names by nature, i.e. is there any necessary relation between a name and its object (φυσει), or as long as there is a convention, an object could be called by any name (θεσει). According to Socrates the true nature of anything is tobe found in its idea and not in its perishable material form. Thus the naturally correct name is that which imitates the idea and reveals it.

Divine knowledge is one of the most important issues which separates the mystic from the scholar by a basic difference with knowledge. We can explain a kind of relationship between Hallaj's and Kharaqani's mystic views through thinking about their words and analyzing their theoretical views, then express their similar ideas about knowledge of God. Hallaj considers two particular features for divine knowledge and accordingly reveals its main meaning in two principles: men's in inability to achieve God knowledge and Extinction by excluding individuality and whatever there is other than God. Kharaqani is a mystic from the forth century Hegira who expressed words similar to the theme of Hallaj's speachs around one century after him, in which men's inability to achieve divine knowledge and extinction are a mystic deliverance factor and his achievement to ideal perfection (God knowledge). In this paper the main approach is analyzing and matching the views of these mystics about knowledge that eventually will lead to a kind of unity, which is real reflection divine knowledge in their views.

Plato’s philosophical activities lasted for fifty years. Obviously stream of human thought is constantly modified by the change of life conditions, and if it is supposed that the outcome of this evolution is to be discerned in a 50-year performance, a change of approaches and diversity of perspectives should not escape from the thorough exploration of the keen researcher. The chronological classification of Plato's works helps us with the better comprehension of the concepts and philosophical theories provided in his philosophy. There is a common belief that Plato who first just tried to sketch the Socrates’ legacy of virtue in his demise, in second optimistically started to confess his own verdict regarding value and knowledge, and in third reconsidered his own initial opinions in the way which Socrates’ lead role disappear in his works. In this paper by presenting tacitly the three different periods, we will, in short, note belonging of each work to its own period. We find then Cratylus the most problematic work in this regard. In order to solve its problem, we recourse to some historical, textual cites and equalities, and some logical arguments based on them. The importance of our discussion besides preparing too many information about the dialogue, will come out most when we could perceive how different periods makes our reading different.