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

One of the common methods to analyze the epistemological perspectives in Islamic tradition is the epistemology of their works describing and placing the principles of Islamic sciences in the form of contemporary epistemology. In this article, the theory of intrinsic authority of the certainty and its requirements will be applied to contemporary epistemology to clarify the principal (Usuliun) and transitive (Akhbariun) epistemic structures as two main schools of thought in the Islamic tradition. With the rise of epistemological debates in Europe and the controversy over how to respond to Goethe’s problem, it seems that a trace of belief in introversion in principles and extroversion in the transitive cannot be seen without the connection between Islamic tradition and Western philosophy at that time; Epistemological introversion and extroversion in the Islamic tradition have a completely religious color and smell, and contrary to Western philosophy, both groups have only sought to know and achieve the divine commandments; Applying the epistemological tools of these two approaches in the Islamic tradition will strengthen the mechanisms for inferring divine commands from their resources. In this article, we seek to provide an overview of the implications of each of the epistemological perspectives and, consequently, the need for modifying some principle rules. The importance of accepting the difference between the cosmological effects of certainty (stimulus) and its legislative effects (justification) in fundamentalism and the need to develop trusteeship in transitive is one of the most important findings of this research.

In this paper, it is shown that as people often convert their beliefs into knowledge through many external means, knowledge cannot be considered exclusive in a justified belief where its justification has been achieved internally. If we do not consider these people’s beliefs as knowledge, we will face some problems; not only will we be caught up in pervasive skepticism but we would also be rejecting the reality of most human items of knowledge. Therefore, to acquire our knowledge, we do not need to use internalism as externalism provides us with new facilities. Philosophy of religion may achieve new solutions through this expansion in epistemology. In this paper, four currents in the philosophy of religion that have used epistemological externalism are mentioned. It is also shown that religious epistemology, based on the trusted hearings which follow Greco’s path, provides a reliable way to justify religious beliefs.However, if we have a justification for religious beliefs through reassured hearings, all religions can claim that their followers believe in their own religious beliefs in this way; so they must be justified, and therefore, all religions must acquire true knowledge, and this is nothing but pluralism.But it seems that to explain the diversity of religions, we do not need to resort to religious pluralism. It can be said that beliefs based on trusted hearings do not rely on their confidence only in the religious preachings, but their confidence in the religious preachings that have been transferred correctly and also that the religious preachings which are based on trusted hearings depend on another preaching and each has been assured through its previous preaching. If some kind of mistrust occurs in this chain then the ultimate believer in the reliability of the narrated in this chain or their collection (in Greco’s particular view) cannot turn his belief into knowledge with the necessary justification.But the problem is what the end of the chain is based on. In some religions, a person can believe in the ability to understand many spiritualities and he has attempted to convey his findings to others. It is clear thatat the end of this chain, if it is the personal findings or readings of a person from spirituality, then the difference in spiritual reception among the early leaders can justify the diversity of religions. Therefore, this type of religious epistemology is dependent on the source of narrations.But some religions speak of believing in an existential truth and one of the consequences of believing in his existence will also be to achieve spirituality. They also believe that their early leaders have based their teachings on their confident hearings of that existential truth.In the meantime, Abrahamic religions believe in God as that existential truth. If a religion (such as Islam) can show the correctness of the chain of reassurance that leads to the prophet’s speech from God and also the prophet considers it not as his concept of spirituality but rather he has stated it because it is the same as the word sent by God, he can show the source of his teachings to be God.What we should ultimately be sure about in this type of epistemology is that he has been able to establish a relationship with God and has conveyed God’s words. In this paper, four paths are mentioned to achieve this assurance.

As a Wittgensteinian fideist, Phillip’s approach to the epistemology of religious propositions is different from Wittgenstein’s approach. In this paper, first through description and analysis of Philips’s approach to three concept and problem of non-realism, the way of life and theory of language games it has been showed that he takes internalist approach to those concepts and problems which is contrary to Wittgenstein’s externalist and contextualist approach, though his internalist approach is a moderate internalism. His moderate internalism has its roots in his distinction between the meaningfulness and and justification religious beliefs and reducing justification religious beliefs to language games. Besides that, he considers the religious way of life different from other ways of life. Our critical review of his approach shows that his absolute distinction between meaningfulness and justification of religious beliefs is a problematic distinction.

During the past fifty years the internalism/externalism dichotomy in regard with justification and knowledge has been controversial, and inclination toward either of them has been considered as epistemological view of contemporary epistemologists. In opposition to externalism, internalism assumed all factors of justification and knowledge are internal affairs. Robert Audi has a combinatory theory: "internalism about Justification and externalism about Knowledge". The central problem under investigation in this paper is the possibility and origins of Audi's view and how it can be distinguished from the others. Like Gattier, Audi takes a critical position against the tripartite definition of knowledge, discussing the differences between the foundations of knowledge vs. justification, and argued that knowledge, due to its dependence on truth, is not accessible like justification. The combinatory of the theory and its elaboration in regard with justification and knowledge is based on both Audi's dualistic view toward epistemology and his belief in the difference of the accessibility of two parallels in epistemology i.e. justification and knowledge. He has regarded the justification as an internal and the episteme as external. Audi’s doctrine is the combined and detailed one on the nature of justification and episteme.

Epistemic duty issue is one of the most important subjects in epistemology. In contrast to the externalism approach, which emphasizes on epistemic duty and responsibility for justification of a belief, the internalism approach regarding epistemology is emerging which focus on the way accepting belief based on cognitive subject rather than epistemic duty. Important issues in this approach are the way of accepting belief and effective factors on the making belief trend. The epistemic value of a belief is determined based on emerging factors. In this approach, providing any justification not necessarily leads to true beliefs eventually finally increasing true beliefs and decreasing false beliefs. Despite in seem that epistemic duty is emerging. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has an internalism approach and considers that justifications are required to have a belief. On the other hand, as Muslims hakim philosophers does not ignore epistemic process and external effective factors on knowledge. In epistemic process, he considers not epistemic external factor including health of senses, avoiding of sin and access to coaching else.

The internalism/externalism controversy has various expanding features in contemporary epistemology. In this article we try to show capabilities of philosophy of Sadra for interfering in this debate. The main goal is to rely on principles of Sadra and defend a kind of internalism that consider cognitive access to factors needed for a belief to be epistemically justified as a pivotal condition. It will be proved that for defense of any knowledge, we should accept immediate and direct knowledge to states of mind and this knowledge is superior from threefold propositional knowledge and merely with reliance on division knowledge to present knowledge and propositional knowledge internalism is defensible. Indeed, some ambiguities in internalism/ externalism controversy is due to inattention properties of present knowledge and its separation from propositional knowledge. After that as respects to those properties and also reliance on division knowledge to simple and compound we answer three main difficulties internalism face and display solution for internalist´s contra examples.

The conventional tripartite definition of knowledge represents it as "true justified belief" and implies that three conditions are necessary to know something namely truth, justification and belief. Here justification has proved to be more controversial than the other two. Epistemologists usually recognize only two types namely doxastic and situational. This is where the Audi's categorization stands out; he proposes four types and speaks of propositional and structural types as well. Structural Justification is an Innovation and the result of Audi's internalist view in justification. Internalism and externalism are two rival views for explaining epistemology and justification. Audi Believes in Accessibilism weak internalism in justification and Structural Justification is the conclusion of his special internalist approach to justification. Given that one of the major criticisms leveled at internalism rests upon its indefinite and mental nature, Audi’s formulation of a definite mental process leading to doxastic justification has successfully reinforced the internalists’ stance. In this research, content analysis method has been used.

By narrated attributes is meant ones related to God in relgious essential texts but reasonably viewed, God may not be characterized by them as understood from their superficial meanings. The Salafists attribute these attributes in their surface and true meaninig to God and know themselves incapable of understanding their quality. The authenticity of Salafist understanding, externalism, sensationalism, denial of metaphore in the Quran, taking mutashabih verses as not being understandable, and opposing hermeneutics are of Ibn Taymiyya's principles in the semantics of narrated attributes. This essay has studied this principles with a critico-analytical approach. The validity of salafist understanding is an unreasonable claim, externalism is not consistent with some of the Quranic verses, sensationalism leads to denial of a part of the world of existence, and to corporeality of God, denial of metaphore in the Quran leads to the denial of its state of being miracle in pronouncement, and incomprehensibility of mutashabeh verses opposes muhkamat state of being ummul kitab and Divine command on tadabbur in the holy Quran and leads to impossibility of any knowledge on God.

Richard Swinburne (1939), a British philosopher of philosophy, is a contemporary scholar of contemporary interest, whose concern is to analyze the use of the terminology of justification and knowledge in contemporary philosophy. Justification and probability are the main concepts of the Swin Berns epistemology. Richard Swinburn(1939), British philosopher of religion is a contemporary epistemologists that his concern was the use of justification and cognition in contemporary philosophy. Justification and probability are the main concepts of his epistemology. He connects justify to probability and cognition. He believes that true belief and cognition are two different concepts and distinguishes between them. The use of cognition is not just to show a true belief but ensure just the true belief. One of the main divisions of justification is the justification theories of internalism and externalism that each considers special components to justify a belief . Swinburn believes we should not think that internalist and externalist accounts are competitors so that from common sense between them, at least just one of them is true. The concept of justified belief is a very vague concept, and intuitions of philosophers and ordinary language users about the quistion that when a belief is justified are very various . Similarly, these philosophers provide accounts abut different types of justification. His goal is to distinguish between these types, to show how they are related to, and then to be understood the issue well, he considers which of these types of justification is more valuable.

Knowledge is one of the most important matters in philosophical literature and since long considered by many philosophers. Ambiguity of knowledge has caused many different related approaches that are propounded. As the first step, this paper focuses on two views of justification of knowledge: Internalism and Externalism. Furthermore, some objections are propounded therein. As the second step, Goldman`s causal theory is expressed. According to Goldman, justification of belief is based on the knower`s reliability with regard to the production source of belief while he/she is independent of creditable theorems in his justification of the formation of beliefs that are criticized by some philosophers in this paper. Finally, the author expresses, in spite of improvements, some concepts such as, “good action” and “motive”, for overcoming criticisms expressed as “truth conditions”, but difficulties are not resolved due to the ignoring of the epistemic factor in the framework of induction and the metaphysic meaning of knowledge, which makes his perspective deficient and problems present.

The aim of the writing this essay, is the consideration of problem justification in epistemology of Avicenna in contemporary epistemology. For justification the beliefs in different realms two approaches are propounded; Internalism and externalism. In internalism, the justification of the beliefs is realized by means of factors inside the structure of perception and this is not resorted to no external factor of the structure of perception. But in externalism, in addition to internal factors of the structure of perception, it is also is resorted to a chain of external factors of the structure. The aim of this essay is to analyze the justification on Avicenna, s view. The aim is that to be light up that this philosopher in justification is internalist or externalist or the matter is the other manner.
The method of the present study is descriptive-analytic rational method and other methods such as narrative and experimental methods are not used.
In this essay this matter is become known that Avicenna, in the definition of truth, accept the correspondence theory and in debate of the criterion of truth, apply the foudationalist theory on the grounds of the method of justification. This philosopher, in course of foudationalist justification, govern the reason on other perception faculties such as imagination and senses. in this course, primary propositions are built over the whole structure of human and in case of absence of them, this structure has no justification. The course of justification, in a retrogradation, is settled to this proposition and the whole beliefs in the whole realms are justified by means of this evident proposition.
The results of the article shows Avicenna, in course of justification, isinternalist and of course this philosopher is attended to external factor under title of active reason. Of course, the active reason if diffuse on human reason, this diffuses change to internal factors and play the role of justification in the structure. Avicenna believes in a combination of internalism and externalism with prevalence of internalist approach.

Epistemologists consider knowledge as a justified true belief. There are three main theories concerning truth which are theory of correspondence، theory of coherence، and pragmatic theory. Theories of justification are divided into externalism and internalism. The main theories in the realm of internalism are foundationalism theory and Coherentist theory. In externalism theories such as reliabilism and probabilistic ones، believer is not required to develop reason and the justification has to do with the external factors. Ghazali''s wager argument on belief in God and in resurrection can be considered as a pragmatic theory، if truth theories are concerned. But if justification theories are concerned، it can be considered as a fundamental theory، because it is based on certain knowledge. It is also، from another perspective، an externalist theory as it puts emphasis on the factors outside the knower to justify the beliefs such as the process of achieving knowledge، willingness، sentiment-ness، and rational state of belief. Keywords: 1-

The Augustinian theologian''s unusual assertion that understanding rests on the faith، seems to be confronted with various objections. Through analyzing، criticizing، and refuting these objections، we will clarify epistemological status of this assertion. This essay consists of two sections. In the first section، by distinguishing two different approaches to epistemic justification، that is، internalism and externalism، it will be argued that these objections are all due to epistemic obligations which are imposed by internalist approach. The said objections، thus، will be resolved if these obligations are eliminated; externalist approach undertakes to do this. Then، we will show that although the latter one can appropriately satisfy the requisites which are necessary to representing a general epistemology but its foundations rest on a condition which will merely be provided through a faith-based explanation. In the second section، we will argue that the Augustinian theologian''s viewpoint is the only one which can appropriately pave the way for this condition.

Internalism has been the dominant attitude in the historiography until mid-20th century. According to this approach, the task of historiographer is to report an intellectual history for scientific theories and depicting that history of science is the history of accumulation of personal discoveries and inventions. The works of Kuhn, however, make a revolutionary turn in the historiography. Under the influence of historians like Butterfield and Koyré, Kuhn investigates science as a social institution and on this ground presents history of science as a history of separation of totality of paradigms. Kuhn believes that literature in history contains a positivistic philosophy and emphasizes the revising of this literature by a new historic attitude. Kuhn’s critics recognize some relativist and antirational elements in his attitude. This article will examine some of the main problems in the basic elements of Kuhn’s points of view.

The classical problem of induction is one of the very known forms of Skepticism، which many philosophers have tried to solve or resolve it. Some epistemologists believe that Externalism could be used as a good approach to resolve the problem. They claim that ‘Process reliabilism’، the most important externalist theory، is less vulnerable to Skepticism than other theories، because of its epistemological fallibilism، and also taking modest and weak criteria to acquire knowledge. In this paper we will argue that externalist theories، including Process reliabilism، presuppose induction، so such theories don’t have considerable capabilities to solve or resolve the problem.

In this paper, first we attempt to explain the concept of paternalism from political philosophy standpoint. Then, restricting debate to epistemology, we show that ultimately paternalism based on an epistemic claim. also, we distinguish certain kind of paternalism as epistemic paternalism and study the manners of actualization and justifying this kind of paternalism. Then, it be emphasized that if epistemic paternalism be constructed on some certain criterions without postulating epistemic superiority of some people and be accomplished through experts, is legitimate because of it's valuable epistemic outcomes.

In history of philosophy، the problem of our knowledge about external world is one of considerable topics and the most important version of that is found in René Descartes. In recent decades، a new approach called Externalism have emerged that seems can respond to this problem especially Process Confidentialism approach. In present article، it have been shown that this theory because of almost tolerable standards and avoidance of strict Cartesian requirements introduce an almost new perspective.

Apart from controversies between internalism and reliabilism in the general epistemology and if reliabilism is taken for granted- at least at the level of daily and conventional justification-, the present article assumes moral intuitions as reliable processes producing true beliefs more than false ones. Thus, in the beginning, the article discusses the nature of moral intuition and reliabilism; then, it claims that, as a reliable process, the assumption of moral intuition may play a justifying role at the daily and conventional level (and not at a philosophical level). In what follows, the article mentions problems in reliability of moral intuition and provides solutions for them. The present writing discusses the above problem on the basis of Goldman’s reformed reading of reliabilism.

Muslim philosophers, theologians, logicians and experts in Usul have defined knowledge as “stable, ascertained true belief”. Counting conjectures as semi- knowledge and semi -ignorance, they believe that ascertained knowledge is confined to the domain of necessary facts, while conjectural knowledge relates to the domain of contingent facts. Based on the definitions and axioms they adhered to, we can infer that they suggest that the appropriate source of belief as the criterion of knowledge. Thus we may qualify the received definition of knowledge by illuminating two parts of it i.e. “stable” and “ascertained” beccaus they are redundant. The reason why they have included these two parts is first, failure to distinguish the definition of knowledge from its criteria and second, separate the cognitive characteristics of belief from non-cognitive ones. Their approach can be described as externalistic and foundationalistic.