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

In the literature on the problem of the criterion, John Locke is described as a methodist: one who prioritizes the criterion of knowledge over its extent and believes that based on the criterion of knowledge, its extent can be determined. However, there is no independent research to substantiate this description. That is the arguments and evidence confirming that Locke is a methodist have not been presented and examined independently. The following article addresses this issue. Hence, the author after a brief review of the problem of the criterion and its background provides the reasons and evidence that Locke is a methodist, including the argument based on 'no innate knowledge', the argument based on 'tabula rasa', and the argument based on the rejection of epistemic authoritarianism. Then, the nature of his Methodism and, indeed, Locke's view of the criterion of knowledge are discussed. During this discussion, it is examined whether Locke considers the criterion of knowledge to be related to the achievement of knowledge or justification. Then, it is argued that if the criterion of knowledge in Locke's view is related to the achievement of knowledge, should his epistemology be considered naturalized? And if so, what is the significance of Locke's discussion of the primacy of the criterion of knowledge over its extent, which is a normative discussion?

The proof of awareness is one of the contemporary proofs of the existence of God. This argument relies on the fact that the emergence of consciousness in the world needs an explanation and scientific explanation is not enough for it. It deals with the theistic explanation of this phenomenon. This argument has been presented in modern times by three theistic philosophers named Richard Swinburne, Robert Adams and JP Moreland in defense of theism. This article tries to provide a detailed conceptualization of consciousness and its types, and, then, examines the various interpretations of the above-mentioned philosophers about the proof of the consciousness of God's existence with an analytical-critical method. The problem discussed in this research, therefore, is the analysis of the what of the proof of the knowledge of the existence of God, which is done by examining the viewpoints of the three contemporary philosophers. The explanation and defense of a new argument among the traditional arguments on the existence of God and the proof of the impossibility of explaining the consciousness based on materialistic views are the findings and results of the present research.

and their relation to the theory in question is called "fundamental methodology”. By the means of a descriptive-analytical method and a fundamental methodology approach, this paper investigates John Locke's social contract theory and aims to clarify the relationship of this theory with Locke's ontological, epistemological and anthropological principles. In terms of ontology, subjectivity and humanism, as well as secularism govern Lock's social contract thought. Combining empiricism with a kind of metaphysics and weakening of sacred intellect by placing the reason as the judge of revelation, are the two important principles of Locke's epistemology in this theory. In terms of anthropology, an optimistic view towards the human nature has influenced his thinking. Accordingly, Locke's social contract theory, which has been put forward after the modern era, has a new nature, a nature that represents a new attitude towards man and his relation to the world, an attitude in which man and his wills and desires is centered.

The issue of natural rights is one of the old subject matters discussed by theologians and philosophers. My question in this essay is what John Locke and Morteza Motahhari’s views on the meaning and role of natural rights, especially, what their views on four central aspects of natural rights, namely freedom, justice, ownership, and human rights, are, and in what respects their views are resemble and in what others are different. The present study addresses critically the foundations of these two thinkers on natural right and consider whether or not these foundations are rooted in theology or anthropology or both? Then, shedding light on resemblances and differences between the two thinkers, who belong to different philosophical traditions, we assess the effects and consequences of their perspective towards natural rights concerning human society. Ultimately, we show that Motahhari and Locke’s perspectives towards human rights based on their distinct philosophical traditions introduce different horizons to human development and progress.

The subject of this article is to deliberate Locke and Spinoza’s arguments for liberty and toleration. In order to achieve this, first i have defined and clarified the two main concepts of this project; toleration and liberty. Then I have discussed the context which causes initiation of defending toleration and liberty in modern ages while discussing the defending theories for religious and political violence in brief. After these, Spinoza’s arguments supporting for toleration and liberty are presented in detail and next, John Lock’s arguments are expressed. In the end, the regard of these two philosophers’ arguments defending toleration and liberty alongside the arguments defending religious and political violence has been deliberated. I have tried to show that which argument defending toleration takedown which principle defending religious or political violence.

Our belief in the reality of things and people that we encounter is the topic of a fundamental discussion in philosophy known as "the existence of the external world." The essential question is whether we have knowledge of the existence of the external world or not. One of the most important answers that have been given to this issue is John Locke's theory of belief in reality which has been discussed in this paper. According to Locke, we have sensory knowledge of the external material world but what he refers to as "sensory knowledge" is apparently inconsistent with the general definition of knowledge in his philosophy. After studying the approaches of contemporary philosophers, we will show that sensory knowledge is consistent with the definition of knowledge in John Locke's philosophy. We will also review the arguments for sensory knowledge of the external world and John Locke's answer to skepticism. Also discussed in this paper is Locke's view that the most certain knowledge of the external world is our knowledge of the existence of God as well as that according to him, we do not have knowledge of other minds or spiritual essences and our certainty in regards to their existence is through faith.

Happiness is one of the deep rooted and fundamental issues and problems. This problem is linked to various dimensions of human life. Therefore it was surveyed in many aspects. In modern times, some scholars, such as John Locke surveyed this subject and struggled with its difficulties. John Locke faced with problems like as pleasure and pain, moral principles, behavioral rationality, criterion of good and bad, and also community, religious institutions, government and law. He combined a naturalistic account of happiness with a religious and moral account of it, and also resolved to obstacles and conflicts on collective life. He also emphasized on rationality, tolerance, law and civic government. This paper study and reconstruct Locke's efforts on analyzing happiness and resolving its dilemmas in theory and social practice arenas.

Rationality of religious belief is one of the most important issues in the philosophy of religion and includes five epistemological approaches. Up till recent times، evidentialism was the approach prevalent in the field of rationality of religious beliefs. And it was considered as a symbol of maximal rationalism. Reformed epistemology، however، is a newly-emerged school which opposes evidentialism and deems rationality as something irrelevant. According to reformed epistemology، religious beliefs may be fully justified and reasonable، even if no evidence confirms them. Here، views of Wolterstorff، as one of the most important scholars advocating this approach، consist of two main assumptions: first، many people believe in many ideas about God in a foundational way، i. e. immediately and not based on other’s ideas; and the other، in most cases، they are right to believe in such ideas. In the present article، after saying that Locke’s standard in making uses of the notion of “reasonable” (which is the same as the standard of classical foundationalism) is not a justified one، the authors will explain the way in which Wolterstorff goes to discuss “rationality”. They will describe that he accepts rationality in the general and extensive sense of the term and by rationality he does not mean only Aristotelian reason; rather، he takes faith as being rational and proposes a synthesis of evidentialism and fideism.

In this paper, some contradictions of empiricism along with some of its various tendencies have been critically brought into consideration. As is understood, empiricists has known human being to be only passive in relation to objective things and events. Then the view has extended to other fields specially to the fields of  values and morality. Though one cannot think all empiricists to be of the same position in opposing metaphysics, natural conclusion of  this school consists in denying every reality beyond sense and nature. Another characteristic of empiricism is its disagreement with rationalism and first philosophy. The reason why is the fact that this school studies every thing by the view of experimental findings of man and in this way, it runs from particular facts to general rule. As we see, empiricism is dependent upon induction.  Furthermore in the school at hand, every apriori knowledge including notions and propositions has been argued against. We, however, know that what is argued against by empiricist is nothing but the foundation of human knowledge. Therefore this school meets an unsolvable problem when justifying the problem of knowledge.     And finally the principles of empiricism leads to the negation of usual meaning of religion; the problem more clearly understood in Hume`s.