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

The aim of this article is to reconstruct the problems and answers which Aristotle raises in Zeta and eta of Metaphysics. Aristotle’s fundamental presupposition here is that definition has parts, and it corresponds to essence or form. This very presupposition leads to the main problems raised in Zeta and Eta. These problems are ordered at each other, and answering one leads to other. According to this articles reconstruction, Aristotle encounters to four main problems on compounds, unity of definition, matter as part of definition, and universality of definition. If definition should to have parts, parts also need to have some unity. then, what guarantees this having parts and yet having some unity? Aristotle’s answer is matter. now, Aristotle encounters with the problem of justification of matter’s entering into definition, because matter is unintelligible. For answering this difficulty, matter should have considered universalized and indeterminate, and this, in turn, leads to last problem, namely, the problem of universality of definition.

In Aristotle's philosophy, knowledge begins with the senses, and sensory perceptions bring knowledge to man through the activity of the "nous" faculty. Unlike Plato, Aristotle denies any innate knowledge; but on the other hand, he clearly states that sensory perceptions do not belong to knowledge and one cannot acquire knowledge to the senses. This creates a paradox in Aristotle's philosophy. If sensory perceptions do not belong to knowledge, how does knowledge arise from "what does not belong to knowledge" and because of the lack of which component of "knowledge", these perceptions do not belong to "knowledge"? According to the authors, the solution to this paradox goes back to the definition of "knowledge" and the possible role of sensory perceptions in the emergence of knowledge in Aristotle. Aristotle does not consider knowledge to be merely "justified true belief" but narrows the scope of "knowledge" to other conditions such as necessity and causality. Therefore, although belief in sensations is a true belief, but these perceptions do not belong to "knowledge" due to the lack of the condition of generality and causality.

Perhaps one of the most pivotal ideas of Kant which connects all of the periods of his continuous intellectual work is the idea of the nature as the whole. According to Kant the nature as the whole is equivalent to totality and universality. This is the rule of the fundamental idea: the particulars finally must be under the general in order to be explicable. But it is interesting to note that this general rule which remains unchanged in Kant’s three periods of intellectual work has a special meaning in each period. So we seek to answer the question of how Kant begins with the nature as the objective and then reaches the nature as the ideal of the pure reason and consider it as the necessary totality for the power of judgment and from there reaches the nature as something that has legal requirements. But such a transformation into the legal and historical nature is possible only if we pay attention to the power of reflective judgments which are contained of aesthetic and teleological judgments. Because it is the power of reflective judgment that provides Kant with the necessary tools to view the nature as a totality whose purpose is the realization of rights. In this sense the nature is something that offers hope to the human race.

Using a comparative method, this paper studies the status of reason in empirical cognition from the perspective of Immanuel Kant and martyr Motahhari to explain their solutions to solve the problem of empirical knowledge. Kant mentions meanings for reason and considers reason in the sense of understanding to have epistemic validity. He considers the judgment of reason to be invalid in the field of metaphysics, and valid in the field of physics due to its temporality and locative nature. To solve the problem of empirical cognition, Kant proposed earlier authorial rulings and for its totality and objectivity, he uses categories of pure understanding. He also considers the correct knowledge of the concept of reason and its function to be involved in the diagnosis of correct empirical knowledge. But martyr Motahhari considers the role of reason in empirical knowledge through the precedence of obvious rational rules for empirical knowledge, and solves the problem of empirical cognition by using secondary intelligibles in empirical knowledge. He depicts the role of reason in empirical knowledge in two areas of perceptions and affirmations. In the case of perceptions, empirical and sensory perceptions preceded and laid the groundwork for rational imaginations and in the realm of affirmations, originality is with reason, and rational affirmations take precedence over empirical affirmations and without reason, no verdict or confirmation will be achieved, not even empirical confirmation.

Kant's transcendental ego is the absolute and final subject which constitutes the logical foundation of knowledge and experience. It is completely subjective, and as the most necessary and fundamental element in Kant's epistemology is involved in any judgment, intuition, imagination, synthesis, and category and, in a word, in any kind of knowledge and experience which occurs in a priori way. One of the most important and fundamental problems arising about transcendental ego is that of its functions. In this article, we have extracted four functions of transcendental ego according to Kant's own viewpoints in CPR which as follows: 1- transcendental ego provides our knowledge with universality. 2- It provides necessity for our knowledge. 3- It makes possible our knowledge. 4-It unifies our knowledge through the process and act of synthesis. Finally, we came to the conclusion that the function of unification is the most important and fundamental function due to fundamentality and importance of the process of synthesis in Kant’s epistemology.

.Hegel explains development of spirit through evolution sensational consciousness, self-consciousness, reason, spirit, religion and Absolute Wisdom. The consciousness and self-consciousness move in the cultural history . In fact, the consciousness is not the stable, but that transmit steps of history live. The consciousness moves with dialectical method in history context. In the respect, knowledge is considered as a dynamic fact and self-discovery. This historicity perspective is to be situated consciousness in the human practice. By Hegel, no consciousness can pure reason. Mannheim set the knowledge into social situation. Consideration at knowledge base make it in the social situation, and emit pure position. Hegel place knowledge to history context and Mannheim attach it to social context. They pass customary epistemological tradition. Mannheim in some basic concepts such as history, ideology, false consciousness, action, totality, knowledge, and truth has influenced of the Phenomenology of Spirit and it has developed in knowledge sociology

Baumgarten maintains that he introduces aesthetics as a science or a branch of philosophy. There is no doubt that being a science requires requirements such as distinction from other realms, enjoying particular legitimacy, having specific laws and principles and universal claims. In other words, to introduce aesthetic as a science he should first explains the unique characteristics of this discipline and its subordination to special rules; so that he could distinguish it from other branches and disciplines. Mentioning the fundamental principle of this branch is important because it causes the universality claim for its judgments. This study tries to deal with Baumgarten’s desire i.e. (establishment of aesthetics) and to answer the question that how he differentiates this new branch from other realm of philosophy and also how he attempts to justify and specify universality of the aesthetics judgments? Baumgarten succeeds in his above mentioned goals by exclusively relating aesthetic to perception and specifying the main feature of this perception i.e. “extensive clarity.” He aims at justifying the universality of aesthetic judgments by introducing aesthetic experience as some cognition-like experience and also introducing general principles. Unfortunately, appealing to general principles which are gained only through experience and general principles of psychology can not specify the universality of aesthetics judgments because the only result of these principles is some psychological and empirical generalization and not logical univers.

Spinoza thinks that God is the only existent substance and all things are manifestations of it. In his view the manifestations of God in all infinite worlds is by his attributes which are infinite numerally and by their natures and they are united with his nature. In this world his nature has manifested by two attributes: thought and extension. Spinoza’s conception of God is so ambiguous that about it too many discussions took place between his commentators. Because of this he was called deist by some, atheist by some and pantheism by some. These paradoxical interpretations made it important to analyze his conception of God. There are two important theories in regard to the relation between nature and attributes of God: the theory of collection, according to which God’s essence is a collection of distinct attributes, and the theory of totality according to which God’s essence is identical with totality of his non-discrete attributes. This article tries to assess these deferent interpretations of Spinoza’s conception of God.

Philosophy in its strict sense is an intellectual discipline concerned with discovering the reality about existent qua existent and its rules. In these discussions the nature and reality of things and the idea of their existence and non-existence are discussed and the certain, discursive, abstractive, general and necessary property of the rule is among the characteristics of philosophical discussions. Proving the subject matter of every discipline, explaining the conceptional principles and proving their judgmental principles are among the main functions of philosophy. For this reason, each one of the added philosophies can constitute a branch of the philosophy in the science which is adjacent to added philosophy.

This paper attempts to explain why Levinas defends subjectivity, as opposed to philosophers like Heidegger and Foucault and also against structuralists like Strauss, and to show that the ethical subjectivity is a central and constant theme in Levinas’s thought. Levinas believes that ‘ethics’ is first philosophy and defines it as ‘the putting into question of my spontaneity by the presence of the Other’. So the structure of ethical subjectivity is ‘the other within the same’ or disposed towards the other. The ethical relation to the other is described by Levinas in terms of infinity. He thinks, according to the philosophy of Descartes, that the human subject has an idea of infinity, and this idea is a thought that contains more than can be thought. In his view, relation to the infinity (other) is ethical and cannot be reduced to comprehension

Innovative explanation of Mulla Sadra about the theory of the Ideas has a special importance. Since, he attempts to provide a new explanation about the nature, place and functions of the Ideas by using the principality and systematic ambiguity in reality of the existence which is different from the previous and even Plato. Accepting the theory of Ideas, he begins to prove them in the order of the whole universe with different ontological, epistemological, Gnostic and religious attitudes. Ontologically, it will be shown that an unchangeable issue is needed in order to ensure the unity, permanence and end of substantial movement of material existents. Epistemologically, Mulla Sadra argues that human soul observes the abstract and supreme examples of the material things in the intellectual perception which they are platonic Ideas. In Gnostic attitude, Platonic Ideas are regarded as resembling to immutable entities and divine attributes. And finally, in theological attitude, he cited to some verses of the Quran that they say that the real existence of this world is in immaterial world. Mulla Sadra considers in all of these words the existential relation such as causality, and epistemic one such as imitation and material things have ideas, and rule out the gap between intellectual and physical worlds by using the ambiguous degrees of the worlds. His attempt to explain more exactly Platonic Ideas leads to the consideration of the imaginal world which is mediate between the sensible and intelligible worlds. In this article, it is attempted to be considered the innovative aspects of Mulla Sadra’s explanation about the theory of Ideas and the measurement of success of this issue is shown.

In the “Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft)” Kant apply the ‘judgment’ as an entry to his philosophical system and according to which he offers Quadra division of propositions and with analyzing of this propositions he try to reach his implications and results. So basic philosophical categories like possibility of metaphysics, Causality, Universality, Necessity, explanation of Natural Science and so on, bases on this division of proposition. But if we prove that he was wrong in his initial steps and there are other modes for explanation of these categories (e.g. Universality, Necessity and etc), we could cancel the bases of many of his conceptions. In this article we chose another mode and show that his idea is controvertible. We clarify that all the propositions are a- Posteriori.

It is prevalently perceived that Kant considered the debat of time only in transcendental aesthetic and schematism of categories of understanding, but this imagination is not absolutely correct. It is right that Kant's whole critical philosophy, especially critique of pure reason, is the debat of time. In fact, Kant in Critique of Pure Reason, founded a sort of metaphysics which can be called metaphysics of time and on this base he changed subject of metaphysics from being to time. Indeed, Kant believes that Human is a temporal being so he can only think about temporal subjects in a choronological manner.