جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تفاوت » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

For Heidegger Dasein as thrown projecting temporalize it's own being. Selfhood Dasein existing against is neutral to any apriori determination and as such it is ungraspable for any representation to assume an ideal self. On the other hand Dasein as disclosing is opened to future and through this openness it is the site of pure difference. For Heidegger the essential openness to difference is as primordial as occurring from the horizon of future and for the sake of itself. This existential for the sake of as the constitution of every average goal made possible by the fact that Dasein in its being is delivered to itself and there is no representational normativity to guarantee the life as a whole. Due to this the basic determination of an authentic self is being in accordance with the logic of neutral self namely difference. We will put it in the article self-transformation and argue that this basic determination of authenticity is made possible through being anxiety for being-in-the-world as such. This is what we will call Eudaimonia. We call the way of relating to the world through anxiety, Dasein's eudaimonia, and consider it the basis of selfhood. Selfhood as eudaimonia requires Dasein to acquire its inherent power for its self-transformation and align with the logic of its inherent realm, which is the place of absolute emergence of the difference of existence from beings. This conformity is the relation of the self to the realm of the self or the being-there of self.

Derrida plays a significant role in introducing Saussure to the philosophical and linguistic discourse of our time. While dealing with Saussure's intellectual foundations and Saussure's influence on Derrida, this article aims to analyze Derrida's deconstructive criticism of Saussure on the issue of writing. Saussure, in the book of General Linguistics, by dividing the realm of language into two parts outside and inside, pushes writing out of the inner realm of language and considers it as the representation of language. Saussure considers writing to usurp the place of speech and considers it a marginal matter. Derrida believes that Saussure could not violate the metaphysics of presence by determining the limits of the inside and outside for language and the exit of writing from the inner realm of language. By proposing the concept of Difference, he refers to the independent aspect of writing compared to speech and removes writing from the subjugation of speech. According to Derrida, the arbitrariness of the sign can bring the signifier out of the subjugation of the signified and create multiple signifiers. According to Derrida, Difference indicates the possibility of continuous becomings in the text, and these becomings will bring an endless chain of signifiers.

This article seeks to demonstrate, through a hypothetical dialogue between Hannah Arendt and Emmanuel Levinas, that the essence of politics must be sought beyond "real politics" and its agent, namely, the state. For this reason, politics requires a fundamental, radical and serious rethinking. This rethinking, however, must be carried out by first deconstructing politics to prepare it for emerging new possibilities; second deconstructing Ethics and extending it from the individual level to the level of "I in the We"; third reinterpreting the relationship between politics and ethics, which are already in the process of constructive judgment and are ready for a relationship that has no master or servant. As a result of such simultaneous reflections, the foundations of what this article views as Ethical politics could probably be clarified in general terms. This essay thus raises three long-standing questions: What is politics? What is ethics? What is ethical politics? The response to the first question is founded on Arendt's views. This paper draws attention to concepts such as plurality instead of unity, public realm instead of private realm, and peace instead of war. Relying on Levinas's philosophy of ethics, the second question is answered by emphasizing the primacy of understanding over cognition, the other over self, and the person over the land. Last but not least, the third question is addressed by establishing a link connection between the mentioned thinkers’ views and their shared ideas such as responsibility for the other, the primacy of the interest of humans over national interests and a new concept of state.

Ibn Habib Neyshaboory in self' book –that it is classified as sufi literature- considers the kinds of madness. In this classification, never madness isn't conceived as illness and it isn't the contrast with rationality. A madman is a man who he chooses different style with public life and refuses formal normal. At a conclusion, a madman is representated as critic of society and politics. Madness is language of outcasts and isolated persons. Therefore, it is irony and overturne ethics-knowledge regime.Foucault, also, criticizes psychiatry' dividing practices that constitutes reason-madness polarity and denies a different ways of thinking. In view of Foucault, psychiatry is a apparatus for social control and rejaction of singular subjects. In this approach, Foucault's perpective becomes similar to Ibn Habib's.But, Foucault, against Ibn Habib, avoids romantic or essentialist interpretation about a innocent essence. Foucault considers refrence to pre-modern discourses as a regressive approach. He pays attention to madness concept because it make possible forms of informal politics: ways of practicing power down to up and pass out of dividing practices. It is beyond of good-bad or truth-false. But Ibn Habib, in sufi discourse, constitutes madness language as hegemonic discourse against philosophical discourse. This article make a comparison between Foucault and Ibn Habib and it transfers superficial similarity to discoursive difference.

Heidegger believed that a metaphysical conceptualization of the relationship between identity and difference is not original and maintained that such negligence is rooted in the fact that metaphysics has forgotten “difference as such” as pure unfoldedness. In his view, the Greeks had a clearer image of the above-mentioned relationship. In his interpretation of Anaximander’s view, Heidegger demonstrates that, while viewing all being as a whole, Anaximander does not ignore the differences among them. Based on Heidegger’s interpretation, through introducing apeiron and time as two fundamental elements, Anaximander managed to have an early encounter with the relationship between identity and difference. Heidegger called this relationship “participation” and maintained that this concept can lead one to fundamental difference. This is because, unlike metaphysical theories, it does not depend on external elements, upon which correlation relies; rather, it depends on the being of beings. Apeiron and time open the door to a pure space in the unfoldedness of which beings find their essence and, at the same time, depend so much on each other that the whole is created based on their mutual relation.

In transcendent theosophy, the science of knowledge of prophet of Islam (PBUH) is different from other schools. Although Mulla Sadra, just like the other thinkers, considers the prophet of Islam like an ordinary human being, but on the base of substantial motion theory, suggests that he has a unique status. Therefore, the main question of this paper is: how we can explain differences and similarities of the prophet of Islam with other human beings from epistemological and ontological point of view? Using his philosophical principles such as the Originality of existence, graduation of the existence, substantial motion and union of knower and Knowledge, Mulla Sadra proves that from ontological perspective, the prophet of Islam is the initial creation in the curve of descent and also all the degrees of existence leads to him in the curve of ascent. Although in the primary determinations, he has the same human nature as other human beings, he traverses the degrees of perfection by knowledge and practice, so that by ascending to each level, that level becomes a part of his essence and eventually he reaches perfection in all triple degrees of reason, soul and sense; and becomes the centralization of intellectual, spiritual and Sensory lights. In the secondary personal qualities, he is completely different comparing to other human beings. Of course, this difference is so deep as if the similarity between the existence of an ordinary human being and a perfect human being, whose best example is the prophet of Islam (PBUH), is just share literal.

This article tries to show how the philosophy of difference comes out of the dialectical philosophy at the time of "writing" when Bataille's reading of Hegel comes complete with some Derridean meditations. The importance of the move from dialectic to difference is realized well when serious critics of Hegel, such as Michel Foucault, assert the difficulties of releasing ourselves of the dialectical thinking. Bringing in the concepts of negation and death to the philosophical discourse has given Hegel an outstanding place in the history of philosophy. These crucial issues could even attract the contemporary critical thinkers. Even though Hegel's treatment of negation and death is considered as the distinct merit of his thought, his approach in this regard has provoked some severe criticisms. Both Hegel and Derrida aim at "affirmation" in their encounter with the negation, however, it seems that in attaining affirmative thinking, Hegel could not remain faithful to his own insight regarding the significance of negation and death. Bataille and Derrida are not satisfied with Hegelian determinate negation at all. That is why they seek another kind of affirmation. Taking some of Hegelian achievements much seriously, which leads to Hegelianism without reserve according to Derrida, can provide us with a new mode of thinking which is non-dialectical. Referring to the Derridean description of Hegel as "the last philosopher of the book and the first thinker of the writing", we start our article and then try to show what it is meant by Hegelianism without reserve in details. We demonstrate how Hegelianism without reserve is accomplished through placing Nietzsche at the hub of dialectic. Inspired by Nietzsche, Bataille challenges Hegelian tragedy, seriousness, systematic thinking and conceptualization with comedy, play, chance and poetry or myth in his encounter with death and negativity. However, Bataille has faced some problems in accomplishing his non-dialectical project. Indeed, it is difficult to criticize conceptual thinking without conceptualization. Derrida's reorganization of Bataille's reading of Hegel according to his conception of writing and difference can overcome the problems of Bataille's approach to Hegel and pave the way for the move from dialectic to difference. Derrida's difference is an influential attempt in overcoming dialectic and introducing a non-dialectical mode of thinking that eventually breaks with Hegelian dialectic.

Comparing doctrines of one religion with similar doctrines of other religions and pointing out the similarities and differences between them can contribute to deep understanding of religious beliefs. One of the main beliefs in eastern religions is reincarnation, which means belief in rebirth of souls in new bodies in this world. The Shiite school advocates the doctrine of Return, in the sense that some of the dead decedents will be brought back to the life at the time or after Imam Mahdi's universal uprising. It is sometimes thought that these two doctrines are of the same origin and that the doctrine of return which some Muslims advocate has been taken from other religions. Therefore, it is necessary to contemplate on, and re-examine the relationship between return and reincarnation in order to comment on this claim. This issue has different dimensions so the present paper tries to study the similarities and differences between the two doctrines. It elaborates on the fact that these two doctrines differ in terms of foundations, principles, and aims. Using a comparative method, the author analyzes the principles and implications of these two doctrines.

Human life is in vital need of daily bread, and, as is said in Quran, God has guaranteed human daily bread. Yet, as is seen, there is not equality in daily bread of people. How can we explain such a disparity with regard to the absolute justice of God? Without a reasonable answer to this question, Divine justice would remain unexplained. Regarding the close relation between daily bread and Divine justice, the paper has presented a reasonable explanation on human daily bread and Divine justice. In this way, the differences in daily bread have been philosophically justified.

This study is an attempt to investigate women’s permission to pass a judgment in the court which is a current trend and has always been important for Islam’s opponents to refer to it targeting Islamic values. Here we have investigated the scientific and legal bases of this religious order (women are not authorized to judge) and we want to see whether this view can be followed. We have considered different important sources available to critically analyze literature in this regard. Those who believe in the necessity of masculinity of a person who passes a judgment refer to various sources, narrations, consensus of arguments to support their own claim. However, analyses made on the arguments of religious authorities revealed that there is no logical reason disallowing women to pass judgment. We can conclude that taking an unbiased look at this issue, for women possessing the related requirements, judgment cannot be denied. Rather we can allow them to pass a judgment to fulfill their responsibility of “joining the right and forbidding the wrong”.

Philosophers before Sadra by a definition of man as rational animal regard reason as true differentia and first perfection and perceptions and actual volitional activities as second perfection which occurs to his specific quiddity; therefore, the plurality and difference of human beings is from the second perfections that human souls in the course of their spiritual perfection get access to them.
Mulla Sadra by discussing the problem of matter and form for a definition of man, unlike previous philosophers regards human form as a purgatory between two worlds of corporeality and spirituality and by basing gradual perfection on substantial motion, regards human being as having different degrees that along with his existential perfection finds different quaddities. By appealing to divine verses and reports, he regards the essential difference of human soul as definitive and emphasizes that the best and most distinguished people can never be at the same plane with the worst and most degraded ones; these two, not only in essential unity but also in specific unity, are different with each other. In this article, after a review of these two completely different views that are deriving from a difference based on principles and foundations, the reason for diversity and essential difference between individual persons as well as the mystery of stations resulting from this diversity will be explained.