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

In Western thinking, one of the most important proofs of God's existence is reasoning through possibility and necessity. Analyzing the process of its various expressions, the characteristics of each of those expressions and their distinctions, as well as evaluating their cognitive validity and achieving a criterion or a solution for evaluation, is the motivation of the current research. The result of this research is that all expressions have been presented in two ways or with two approaches: 1. Expressions through causality or causal explanation; 2. Expressions through description and explanation or non-causal explanations. On the other hand, by examining Aquinas's and Locke's expositions, which are examples of causal explanations, we are led to the conclusion that those expositions are either reasoning through occurrence or reasoning through non-causal explanation, not reasoning through possibility and necessity, nor reasoning based on causal explanation. Therefore, their epistemological validity is under question. On the other hand, Leibniz's argument and other explanations through non-causal explanation fail to carry epistemological validity, and it is not possible to achieve certain knowledge, even based on the correct assumption.

Mutavatirat (unanimously agreed on) which are a kind of arguments based on transmitted knowledge, have a significant role in such sciences like theology, history and homogenous sciences in which the arguments based on transmitted knowledge are powerful. This paper discuses Mutavatir propositions using an epistemological view in that they have certainty and can be the genesis proof. As an introduction, the paper first defines Khabar (tradition) or mutavatir proposition, evaluates the presented definitions and expounds the conditions of the validity of a tradition and then to discover what kind of knowledge we get from mutavatirat: suppositional or certain? If certain, then is it valid or personal? Finally, the paper addresses the principal question, i.e. their being self-evident and origin of theorem. The criticisms which are directed to their self-evidence or certainty are assessed. It is concluded that their epistemological degree is inferior to certainty in its strict sense.