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

The problem of perception and its indication of reality is one of the most important issues among philosophers since the beginning of philosophical thinking. Mirza Javad Maleki Tabrizi is one of the thinkers and mystics who has expressed valuable opinions in this regard. Although at first glance, his views may be somewhat different from the famous epistemological theories, they enjoy features that are worthy of consideration from a scientific and technical point of view. Some of the exclusive features of his epistemological system are as follows: lack of full understanding of the realities of the natural world due to the errors in sensory perceptions, unity between the knower and the known, belief in the multiplicity of a single object of perception for different perceiving subjects, negation of the external existence for (material) bodies due to the multiplicity of perceptions from a single object of perception, taking all human perceptions to occur in the existential realm of the human soul, explaining perception as a factor for explaining the quality of the soul and not as an expression of the quality of the external object of perception, considering the quality of human perception to be dependent on the existential level of the knower.Using these principles, Mirza denies the correspondence between mental object of perception and external object of perception and basically deems such a correspondence unnecessary.  This article aims to introduce and analyze the views of Mirza Javad Maleki Tabrizi about perception and it indication of reality.

 Language is a seemingly simple but at the same time very complex phenomenon. Linguists have always tried to understand what language is and provide a definition of it. Among the sages, Mulla Sadra has an ontological view of speech and, relying on his system of jurisprudence, defines language using the principles of the originality of existence, sequence of existence, and substantial motion. The purpose of this article is to provide a descriptive-analytical explanation of Mulla Sadra's view on language but from an angle that is in correspondence and similar to the universe. He introduces language in a system that corresponds perfectly to the universe and it means both with an ascending and descending course, beginning and end, grading and rank, fertility and dynamism, and in proportion and addition with the audience. Part of this correspondence is in the relationship between mind and object. He believes that language and existence are so intertwined that existence is nothing but words.

Research Questions:

Is language an existential truth or a contractual tool?
What is the relationship between language and universe?
What are the areas of similarity and correspondence between language and the universe?

 Mohsen Pirhadi and Alilah Badashti, in the article “Criticism and review of verbal and emotional speech based on transcendental wisdom” compare the views of theologians and Mulla Sadra regarding the verbal or emotional nature of the speech, and its purpose is to investigate whether the divine word is verbal or emotional. However, the following article not only examines speech in divine and human dimensions, but its purpose is to study language in the system of existence.
Maqsood Mahmoudi also examines the views of theologians and Mulla Sadra in the article “Explanation of the attribute of speech, the divine word and the descent of revelation based on the transcendental wisdom “similar to the previous article.
Also, Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Mirdamadi and Seyyed Mehdi Emami Juma, in the article “Philosophical principles and principles of Kalam and Divine Book in the modern ontology of Mulla Sadra” deal with the issue of if we want to consider existence as the Word or Divine Book, what are the characteristics of existence we face. To explain this point of view, he points to thirteen rules for studying the Book of Being, which are necessary to know, such as the unlimitedness of the divine word, the unseenness of the divine word, etc. The purpose of this article is not only to know the divine word, but it considers the language regardless of whether it is divine or not, compared to the characteristics of the universe. 

 The purpose of this article is to examine the similarities and correspondences between the world of existence and speech from Mulla Sadra's point of view, which is done with a comparative approach and descriptive-analytical method. This work has been done through library research and information gathering, and then comparing Mulla Sadra's views in the two areas of existence and speech.

 Just as Mulla Sadra is the founder of a new ruling system regarding the world of existence, he also presents new and creative views on the nature of language, which are completely consistent with the world of existence and can only be understood by knowing his philosophical principles. He introduces words and speech in a structure that, firstly, has unity in connection with the composite mind and secondly, in similarity and correspondence with the universe, it starts from a specific beginning and leads to a specific destination, but this end itself becomes the beginning for Siri. An ascent that ends at the initial origin. This process of descent and ascent occurs in a two-way interaction between the speaker and the listener, and the role of both is important in this matter. Just as the world of existence is multilevel and this is a favor from the Holy Prophet to provide the way of knowledge for human beings, speech also corresponds to the world of existence, it is multilevel and every word leads us to a specific meaning with a specific level. Interaction with the audience makes sense. Existence is constantly giving birth and moving, and speech is a creative gift that invents new sentences and meanings at the foot of the generative existence. In the end, existence and speech are so similar that he considers the universe to be nothing but speech.

Eco Critical theory inspects the existing interconnections of the natural world and the human activities. Considering diverse philosophical perceptions of different philosophers discloses the deep existence and survival of ecocritical awareness in human being`s collective unconscious though it might have been articulated in dissimilar terminologies or technical terms. The interested reader can find traces of the same concerns in Swedish Swedenborg. The two notions of Correspondence and Influx signify the connection between spirit and matter, mind and body and it can be claimed to be what connects Man`s physical life with his/her perpetual nonphysical life. Investigating such notions in an Eco Critical realm the essay advocates a type of Eco Critical realization that requires us to unearth the covert long existing correlation between Man and the nature and the relation between this ecocritical notion and some of Swedenborgian specific philosophical notions. The purpose of this article is to analyze the components of ecocritical criticism in Swedenborg's works according to two philosophical concepts of Correspondence and Influx. This spiritual awareness clarifies that human beings cannot live in accord with the universe until they can manage to conduct their lives in harmony with Divinity since this God centric ideology does not let anything except reverence toward the environment as it is the epitome of God, the absolute creator.

In this paper, we attempt to answer this fundamental question that whether is any criterion of truth in Kant’s transcendental philosophy or not? Through analysis of “transcendental deduction”, and referring to Dieter Henrich's interpretation of the background of that term, and Robert Paul Wolff’s formation of that, we try to illustrate the significance of this part of the first critique for establishing a well-formed and compatible theory of truth in Kant’s philosophy. We claim since Kant believes that knowledge contains judgment and predication, in a word, a process of "synthesis", his theory of truth is a kind of “coherence theory of truth”, although Kant himself, in a famous passage of critique, says the definition of truth is correspondence and also we concede that his coherence theory is a peculiar one. Eventually, in favor of Robert Hanna's reading of Kant’s theory of meaning, we conclude that this theory involves a kind of scepticism, which we call “epistemological scepticism”.

For analysis and formulation of "truth", several theories have been stated, one of which is the correspondence theory. Correspondence means that proposition is in accordance with reality or (according to the Islamic philosophers) Nafsal-Amr, it indicates connection between proposition and reality or (according to the Western philosophers) the fact; That is, in correspondence theory, true statements represent reality. Although correspondence, with its maximum adherents among Western and Muslim philosophers, guarantees the discovery of knowledge of reality; However, there have been problems with it, some of which have been answered, but some have regressed this theory and even put the philosopher in position of presenting an alternative theory such as coherence, pragmatism, etc.

Method of Study:

 The current research has been carried out with the aim of analytically explaining the evolution of Sadra's view in the issue of correspondence, through the descriptive-analytical-rational method, explain Mulla Sadra's answers to the problems of correspondence theory and designing and drawing his alternative theory .

Problems of the correspondence theory based on the duality of the mind and the object are: the union of substance and accident, the inclusion of something under two different categories, etc., which is known as the problem of the “mental being” among Muslim scholars and Mulla Sadra's answers to those problems are classified in Three levels : 1. Separation of Hamle_avvail from Hamle_shaaye according to the essence of knowledge, which solved the problem of the union of substance and accident and the inclusion of an object under two categories .2. The theory of existential correspondence between mind and object, according to the existence of knowledge and separation of knowledge from mental being, relying on the originality of existence and gradation in existence, which is result of the objective correspondence of the superior existence of essence to its special existence . 3.Deviating from the correspondence theory and returning all human knowledge to the knowledge by presence which is infallible, and its infallibility is justified in such a way that since the knowledge by presence is without the mediation of the mental form, then in it, the correspondence of knowledge with the intelligible is not a question, but knowledge is the intelligible.

The result is that analytical explanation of the evolution of Mulla Sadra's view in the issue of correspondence is based on two cl aims the first claim (which is a more modified state than the second) replaces existential correspondence with substantive correspondence, which is the middle view and the second level of Sadra's theory and it can be taken from the basics of: the originality of existence and gradation in existence. In the second claim (which is a more perfect state than the first), based on principles such as: The immateriality of knowledge, Unification of the intelligent, intellect and the intelligible, the presence of all knowledge and the infallibility of knowledge by presence, there is no place for correspondence theory; Because correspondence is only discussed in the field of acquired knowledge, and this is the final view and the third level of Sadra's theory .

The problem of human perception through some mental being and its immanent relation with the soul and the latter’s presential knowledge of the mental being and the correspondence between the mental being and the external reality is indeed the very answer given by Avicenna to the question of the mechanism of the acquisition of knowledge of the external sensory objects. This essay seeks to explain why this analysis changes in Transcendent Theosophy into the theory of intuition by the soul, in the first stage, and the birth of the mental being from the independent notion of the presential knowledge, in the second stage. Amid the era of Avicenna and the era of Mulla Sadra, some philosophers emerged who were devoted to answering the objections against Avicenna’s stance, according to the author’s view, against the mainstream interpretation. The stance of these philosophers was not indeed the rival of Avicenna’s stance though certain objections can be levelled against their stance either. To study the reason of the aforementioned why, the author provides a historical sketch of these ideas from Avicenna to Mulla Sadra in a critical way and assays the reasons of the change in the coordinates of the analysis of the knowledge of the external sensory objects in Mulla Sadra’s philosophy.

In developing a theory of truth, as the main condition of knowledge, four issues are usually examined: definition or analysis of truth, truth bearer, truth-maker, and relation (in correspondence and coherence theories). A proper theory of truth is the one that affords the explanation of the truth of all types of propositions, and, at the same time, resists the liar paradox. The aim of this inquiry is to analyze Nasīr al-Dīn al-Tūsī’s theory of truth one who is involved both in the liar paradox and in the explanation of the truth of the verity propositions and propositions that are made of intelligibles that have no instance in external world. This inquiry shows, with an analytical approach mostly systematic analysis, that he regards, against the difficulty of the lair paradox, propositions that are other than what they are about as the bearers of truth. Further, it shows that he, against the other difficulty, has two attitudes: first, he desists from the correspondence theory of truth and defines it as “ascription of an ideational thing to what, with its characteristic, is proper for it”; second, he considers the agent intellect to be the truth-maker. Although he regards the correspondence relation as an intentional relation, he does not discuss it much. One explanation could be that the issue of the correspondence relation does not play a serious part in the aforementioned difficulties.

In his Illuminationist Hikmatic System, Suhrawardi started from himself and his intuitive self-conscousness and then he reached at the God. On the one hand, he found the identity of himself and his light causes as “presence by oneself”, and on the other hand, he explained the agency (origin-ness) and the other-consciousness of substantial lights by illuminationist relation. According to those parts of the philosopher’s constructive works which are devoted to the explanation of the identity and determination of the status of illumination and intuition in the spheres of existence and cognition, one can conclude that “existence” and “presence” are identical in Suhrawardi’s philosophy and the necessary generality of this function can be proven based on the self-consciousness and other-consciousness of the Light of Lights. By this approach, any possible gap between ontology and epistemology are systematically overcome. In fact, by tracing the knowledge by correspondence (mediated) back to the knowledge by presence (immediate), by founding the human cognition upon the intuitive necessity and certainty, Suhrawardi left behind the challenge of unrecognizability of correspondence between known-by-itself (the subjective) and known-by-something-else (the objective), and explained the recognition of personal identity.

Two main approaches to solve one group of liar paradox's versions _that is, the group in which demonstratives are used_ are denying self-reference sentences and denying that the liar sentence is a statement, which is the primary and genuine bearer of truth. The major problem with the first approach is that they have not explained why we do not have self-referential sentences and usually try to omit them with conventions. The main problem with the second approach is that they have not explained why the liar sentence would not constitute a statement. We, in this inquiry, after casting a new twosome division for all versions of the liar paradox, will present a solution, or probably a way of dissolution, for a cluster of the versions, namely the cluster in which demonstratives are used explicitly or implicitly_ a solution that, in a way, has the two approaches in it. The solution is this: since firstly propositions are primary and essential bearers of truth and secondly pointing out to an inexistent that is neither existent nor in relation with an existent is impossible, so no proposition in correspondence with the sentence "this sentence is false" is formed in our minds, because before this sentence is formed completely and before ascribing the predicate to the subject, no sentence was formed so that we could refer to it and ascribe a predicate to it. So we would not have any propositions in correspondence with the sentence so that it would be descripted to the truth/falsity primarily and by-itself and the sentence would be true/false by virtue of it, because a portion of the sentence_ namely the subject_ has not sense, namely before predication we do not have “this sentence”.

Concept of truth has a unique importance in Popper’s philosophy of science and this is mainly because of his acquaintance with Tarski and his semantic concept of truth. In Popper’s view, Tarski’s theory is a correspondence theory and this viewpoint has been criticized from different perspectives. For example, some philosophers criticized the correspondence theory of truth, regardless of who its proponent is; and some others mentioned that Popper’s interpretation of Tarski’s theory of truth is not consistent with other parts of Popper’s philosophy. In this paper, I’ll try to answer to the following questions: Did Tarski himself regard his semantic theory as a correspondence one? In spite of Tarski's own view, was Popper right in using Tarski’s theory of truth as a correspondence theory? First, the main core of semantic theory of truth is introduced and is continued by Popper’s interpretation and its two main criticisms by Herbert Keuth and Susan Haack.

Regarding the theory of mental existence, Muslim philosophers have presumed the issues of scientific reality and the match between objectivity and subjectivity. However, this presumption is faced with different challenges and it seems that indeed these challenges do not allow the mental existence to have the sufficient efficiency. On the other hand, the ideas of contemporary philosophers including Quine and Davidson essentially challenge the very idea of a match between subjectivity and objectivity, which is the prerequisite of the mental mode of existence. These philosophers believe that we have to use epistemology or semantics for addressing existential issues. We try to show that having accepted these criticisms, mental existence cannot fully play its previous role; however, by assuming the acceptance of the principle of mental existence and recognizing mental creatures, we can define a new role for this mode of existence. Here, we will question the relation between mind and mental creatures considering the understanding and construction of language expressions. Also, we will try to show that the response given to the question “how do we reach an understanding of sentences or lingual expressions?” based on prescriptive rules (grammar) is in odds with recognizing the characterization of mental creatures; accordingly, accepting the mental mode of existence will lead to the fact that language rules are descriptive and not prescriptive.

The issue of primacy of existence or quiddity, is one of the important philosophical issues. Some philosophers have gravitated to primacy of existence and some of them have gravitated to primacy of quiddity. The preferred viewpoint in this essay (professor Khosropanah’s viewpoint) is primacy of existence and quiddity. According to this view, the external fact is the real, essential and without conditional mode of the referent belonging to the meaning of existence and quiddity. This viewpoint does not imply that one external thing becomes two things, because there is evidence that numerous meanings have filled the external world objectively not uniquely. Besides, it does not imply that essence and existence are co-ranked, because their status is different in terms of different aspects and from the viewpoint of two different analyses: rational and conventional. Primacy of existence and quiddity is considered to be of inherent propositions, i.e. the true conception of its premises brings about the result. In the end, some of the ontological and epistemological results of this viewpoint are mentioned in relation to the problem of generation (Al – ja’l), primary and secondary intelligibles and also the problem of correspondence.

The relationship between subject and object is an epistemological issue which determines the realistic or idealistic position of a philosopher. Among Muslim philosophers, Suhrawardi moves away from Aristotelian realism and proposes a new theory called ‘resemblance’. Denying the apprehension of the essence of things, he challenges the essential correspondence and advances the theory of the resemblance of the subject and object through gaining knowledge from trait complexes. An important problem with Suhrawardi’s theory of resemblance is its idealistic approach and its introspective interpretations. The current study attempts to use the relationship between argumentative philosophy (rational philosophy) and intuitive philosophy (tasted philosophy) to refute the problem referred to above. The major argument is that Suhrawardi’s illuminative realism which substitutes similitude for correspondence can move away not only from Aristotelian dogmatic correspondence but also from idealism and can put forth a logical philosophical model which can explain the relationship between intuition and realty.

The miracle of Quran, as the major source of proof of the prophethood claim and its verification, has assumed a very high position in inside religion controversies specifically in theological controversies, oratory and promotion of the religious cause. Nowadays, with the development of epistemological issues, the outsider view of the study of the miracle of Quran, especially from the point of view of the classical theories of epistemology, has assumed great importance. Epistemology, as a fundamental approach in modern philosophy, is seeking possibility, boundary and conditions of human knowledge. In fact, the study of the truth value and justifiability of scientific theories constitute the major focus of epistemology. With the plurality of interpretations of the miracle of Quran, it is of utmost importance that these interpretations are studied from an epistemological point of view. With this aim in mind, we first present the theories of the miracle of Quran and their components. We then present the major epistemological approaches and their components. In specific, the aim is to study the epistemological foundations of possibility and meaning of the miracle of Quran in terms of classical theories in Epistemology (e.g. coherentism, correspondence theory and pragmatism). Such an epistemological scrutiny will explicate the epistemic implications of the Quranic interpretations and will also enrich the connection between epistemology and Quranic studies.

Farabi has used three (Two existential and one epistemological) meanings for Right and Avicenna also following him, has considered these three meanings for right. These meaning include absolute (permanent) existence, actual existence and the truth. if a proposition corresponds with reality, it is called true and if the reality corresponds with proposition, it is called right. All Muslim philosophers have considered correspondence as a criterion for truth.
Furthermore, Avicenna believes in the practical status for the wisdom from the aspect of functional intellect. Justice is a fundamental principle in functional intellect and he deems right as a criterion for justice in practical wisdom.
Although Avicenna has adopted argumentative approach in philosophy, he has illuminative and mystical view either. The third aspect that Avicenna took heed to the right is the intuitive and mystical aspect of wisdom. In addition to his firm belief in the representational knowledge, he believes in immediacy (presential) knowledge. To Avicenna’s view right has an existential aspect, so it is by the belief in presential knowledge that right will be linked with the epistemological aspect and even unites with it in strict sense.

Ayatollah Javadi Amoli's theory of production of religious science is one of the considerable attitudes. The main structure of this theory is based on religious knowledge foundations. The abstract of his theory is as follows:A. The science is not secular essentially; faith and disbelief are not contributed in the nature of science; but the scholars are divided into religious and non-religious.B. All sciences, including humanities and basic, are to reveal the secret of act and words of God. This is the very revealing level of science that is the essential requiring of science. The condition of being Islamic is not explanatory but it is preservation condition.C. From the other hand, with the sovereignty of atheistic or Islamic absolute philosophies, the sciences are also modified as being atheistic or Islamic.D. As the whole world is God's creation, and as all understanding powers and all its findings even industry are Divine blessings- because the science is Divine creation- undoubtedly the science is also a religious matter. Although the fundamentals of this theory have ambiguities:1. According to the epistemological fundamentals based on the corresponding disclosure, the attributing sciences as being Islamic, has not determined meaning and dividing science into religious and non-religious is meaningless; and unwantedly it justifies all modern sciences as being Islamic.2. Absolute philosophy is being asked seriously whether it could be Islamic or not; while absolute philosophy is the vessel for Islamization of sciences and the "philosophies of". 3. Finally, it does not have any specific criteria for the science as being Islamic.

Riddles are one of the components of the folk literature of Iranian ethnic groups. In the past, they were one of the major tools for improving thinking and rationality as well as promoting the level of thinking, optimizing the methods of thinking, and developing thinking skills in children. However, they can be revived and updated in order to be used for the same purposes today. As we can see, there are several instances of riddles in Arabic, Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Anglo-Saxon literature. The wise men of various Iranian ethnic groups, such as Turks, Azaris, Kurds, Lors, Baluchis, and Gilakis, used and disseminated riddles as rich sources of developing ways of thinking. At that time children became involved in those fascinating game-like riddles which provided the basis for rational thinking in their mind. These instructive games which were followed by rewarding children with encouraging comments and small prizes sometimes had miraculous outcomes and helped to form the foundations of Iranian thought. In this paper, the author intends to demonstrate that critical thinking, which is of great importance in the world today, is embedded along with all of its six-fold elements in these rich sources. Through reviving and updating these native elements of folk literature, in addition to preserving them, we can continue exploiting a rich source of critical thinking which has previously proved to be very useful. Here, while referring to equivalent riddles among various Iranian ethnic groups, the author tries to match them with the six-fold elements of critical thinking.

One of the basic theories on knowledge criterion in Islamic philosophy is scientific privileges of holistic spiritual intellect on whose basis knowledge criterion i. e. correspondence criterion is based on holistic spiritual intellect. That is to say، relying practically on holistic spiritual intellect we can attain knowledge about the universe via verdicts and statements stable in the mind. Then if they correspond to the subject’s knowledge، they are true; otherwise they are false. This essay is an explanation، analysis، and evaluation on the abovementioned theory in brief.

should be corresponded to the reality، in Mullasadra’s view the correspondence and non-correspondence is an acquired knowledge. He believes that essence is the intermediary between subject and object، which has the same existence in the both sides. The drawbacks of the theory indicate that he could not demonstrate the correspondence between subject and object. Besides، according to the priority of existence and the gradation of existence، one can propose the sameness of objective existence theory، according to which knowledge is the higher existence of known essence.