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

Theological voluntarism, which is a deep-rooted approach in the philosophy of ethics and is also expressed in Ethyphron's treatise, seeks to prove the dependence of ethics on God. In this article, which has been investigated with an analytical and library method, a comprehensive system for the classification of realist theories is presented first by focusing on minimal realism - which includes subjectivism, intersubjectivity and objectivism. In the following, by explaining the components of the new theological voluntarism, it will be clear that the new theological voluntarism in values is in the category of maximal realism and a novel type of objectivism. The new theological voluntarists in the field of valuing consider moral propositions to be an external nature, which is the good nature of God. Theological voluntarists in the field of conscientiousness are by no means classified as maximal realists. The new theological voluntarism in the section of moral duties supports a special type of subjectivism in which God's desires and wishes are central and not human tendencies and preferences.

Hermeneutics has been defined as "interpreting". Hermeneutics has faced many differences and conflicts in its tumultuous history, and the views of theorists on the mission of hermeneutics and its realm have varied widely. One of the most controversial issues in hermeneutics, which has even led to a fundamental shift in hermeneutic issues, was the ontological view of understanding, as regarded by Heidegger and Gadamer. They did not know the truth, as in previous periods, through the presentation of methods can be achieved. Philosophical hermeneutics believed in subjectivism; Prior to the emergence of this view, hermeneutics such as Schleiermacher and Delta sought to find a way to understand and to understand the correctly in terms of author and objectivity will be possible. Although ontological approach to the understanding of discourse are considered by many of twenty century philosophers, It also has been faced the criticism. Emilio Betty Warrick Hirsch defended objectivism in understanding texts with a critical and methodological view of understanding. This methodological approach is called methodological hermeneutics and the ontological approach is called philosophical hermeneutics. In this article, we try to explain the objectivist methodological hermeneutics through a library method and, referring to Heidegger and Gadamer's views, address the most important critiques of Hirsch in the subjective approach of philosophical hermeneutics.

Morality is one of the most fundamental aspects of human life. Moral intuitionism is a branch of ethics responsible for explaining whether ethical principles are objective or not. Georg Edward Moore believes in the objectivity of moral principles and rejects moral subjectivism. In his critique against subjectivists, he states that we should not equate objectivity with internality. Khajeh Nasir al-Din al-Tusi the philosopher and theologian of the Islamic world who has many works in the field of ethics is considered a virtuous philosopher. The present article examines and compares objectivism and subjectivism in ethics then after explaining objectivity in Khajeh’s point of view, compares his approach with Moor’s view. Although meta-ethics issues were not raised during Khajeh’s lifetime, by examining his works, it can be argued that he is also an objectivist in ethics and does not accept subjectivism.

The philosophical discussion about objective or subjective is sometimes focused on beings and things; Sometimes it is about linguistic propositions and expressions, and in the case of beings and things, it occurs in both metaphysical objectivism and epistemological objectivism. In the case of linguistic propositions and expressions, there are three approach and applications of objectivity; Semantic, metaphysical and discourse objectivity. In the field of legal issues, too, the objectivity is arised in several ways; and not in a common sense; and everywhere, in the contrary of a particular meaning, in the face of the opposite concept. Both metaphysical objectivity and epistemological objectivity are also raised in the field of legal issues. Metaphysical objectivity in law is accepted when we consider the existence of law to be independent of the minds and beliefs of individuals. Whereas epistemological objectivity in law has two meanings; in the first sense, objectivism means the observance of impartiality and non-partisanship, and in the second sense, it means the possibility of understanding and transindividualand discernibility and legal shareability.

Despite being used in different branches of humanistic science such as literature, theology, and especially philosophy during the last two to three centuries, Hermeneutics has not yet been defined clearly. The literal meaning of hermeneutics in dictionaries has been affected by its traditional meaning as an interpretation of the holy book. Although hermeneutic roots can be found in ancient Greece, its serious presence is connected closely by understanding the holy books. Levels of meanings and metaphorical aspects alongside the absent author are of the characteristics of holy books which make their understanding with a problem. That was why a means for “understanding the primary meaning of holy text “was needed and hermeneutics proposed this means. Determining the meaning was, therefore, the assumption of classical hermeneutic, and “achieving the author’s intention” was the philosophy of hermeneutical science. During the different eras, hermeneutics has been defined differently from “achieving the author’s intention” to “creating meaning by interpreter” or even “the death of the author”. From Gadamer's point of view, hermeneutics tries to understand the text. He, however, emphasizes that assumptions have great dominance on the interpreter, and, therefore, discovering the intention of the author is not possible. Such an idea strengthens relativism in the field of epistemology and is criticized by some scholars like Hersch in the school of critical hermeneutics. Eric Hersch is one of the great theoreticians believing in the intention of the author. He is known for reviving the classical hermeneutics. Although his ideas are greatly following Schleiermacher and Dilthey (romantic hermeneutic), he gets distance from the romantic hermeneutics as well as philosophical hermeneutics by referring to the fundamentals of classical hermeneutics and restricting the meaning of intention of the author. By defending from the “intention of the author”, he tried to criticize philosophical hermeneutics so his hermeneutics is known as new hermeneutic. He believes that even though discovering the intention of the author is so difficult, the chief job of an interpreter is to reveal the interpreter’s logic, interests, intellectual input, and, generally, the word of the author. One of Hersch’s ways to revive the “intention of the author” is to classify between the types of interaction with any text. he believes that four-functions are possible for every text,” understanding”, “interpretation”, “judgment”, and  “criticism”. To distinguish between these functions, he proposes two fundamental separations as “separation between “Subtilitus Explicandi” and “Subtilitas Inteligendi”. Hersch believes that the main mistake of Gadamer and Heidegger was not paying attention to this big difference in understanding. Using a method like a reverse argument, Hersch proves the incorrect consequences of denying the author and dependence of meaning of the text which is doubtfulness and ignoring determine and demands incorrectness to any kind of reasoning of a theory of independence of meaning. Separation of text from the thought of the author, hence, causes the plurality of meaning rather than a single meaning; however, it extirpates not only the author’s thought but also the essence of the meaning. Emphasizing that there is a big difference between the validity of interpretation and creativity of interpretation, Hersch points out that creativity in interpretation does not lead to the validity of interpretation. He believes validity refers to an accommodation with the meaning of the text. In this way norms like “sensitivity”, “acceptability”, “power”, and “attractiveness” are not so important. Because what the text says maybe is none of them. The aim of interpretation, therefore, from the internationalists’ perspective is the validity of interpretation which its necessity is a limitation. Hersch, hence, emphasizes that the validity of interpretation which refers to the accommodation of a meaning that text presents is not necessarily creativity in interpretation. Opposed to all internationalists who believe in the theory of independence, Hersch considers meaning a sort of awareness, not words. This departure of words from meanings makes serious problems for him which made him present some rules named as the rules of confirming interpretation in four functions. By making use of these rules, it is more probable to achieve the intention of the author and reach a valid interpretation, especially in holy books in which the author is absent. These rules are “legitimacy”, “correspondence”, “gendered appropriateness” and “coherence”.

Arguing against relativism and constructivism and defending objectivism, Paul Boghossian considers three theories concerning description-dependence of fact, including Putnam's theory on the interpenetration of fact and convention. Boghossian holds that the basis of Putnam's theory is the phenomenon of conceptual relativity; so, if we reject his view about the phenomenon, his theory will be rejected. Accordingly, He explains this phenomenon and criticizes Putnam's attitudes towards it and finally concludes that this ‘argument’ cannot prove Putnam's theory. Here firstly it will be argued that Putnam himself was aware of these objections and had developed some ideas to solve them; so, using his texts and arguments, we try to reply to the main objections of Boghossian to Putnam's view about this phenomenon. Secondly, it will be argued that, in contrast to Bogghossian's belief, Putnam's theory is not based on the phenomenon of conceptual relativity. Instead, the idea of the interpenetration of fact and convention is based on two other arguments: the model-theoretic argument and the argument from the brain-in-a-vat scenario. Therefore, even if Boghossian's objections to Putnam's view about the phenomenon of conceptual relativity were acceptable, they could not reject Putnam's ideas on the interpenetration of fact and convention.

In what follows, the authors have revised different views on the origin of meaning in social sciences according to the subject-object relation, and then they have stated the position of Sadraian theosophy on the issue. In this course, three major approaches have been recognized: object-centered view, subject-centered view, structuralist view.     The first view seeks for the origin of meaning in the object and the second in the subject and its creations. Having considered the death of sense-making subject, the third view seeks for the structured meaning in the midst of cultural and historical relations. In contrast, Sadraian theosophy does not embrace the tie between the knowing subject and the object to be known according to the subject-object relation. Nevertheless, according to Sadra’s viewpoint, mankind has an earthly-heavenly identity whose relation with the meaning of his perceptions is developed according to the rule of union of the knower and the known on some scale, and on another scale, according to the mechanism of metaphor, man’s common nature, and his reserve of true meanings. Accordingly, the origin of meaning is from God who gives the forms, and man has the option to either turn to the Giver of forms or turn away from Him and thus decide about different worlds of meaning for himself. This viewpoint has its outcomes in social sciences: that we are not obliged to reduce meanings to the level of sensible objects, that we might embrace different systems of necessary meanings outside man’s inner being, that we may consider man’s unified and single identity, and that we may not reduce the identity of meanings to the merely conventional and social issues.

The question of objectivism is one of the key questions in moral philosophy. Moral objectivism states that moral values and obligations are objective and moral statements reflect objective truths. A prominent moral philosopher, Richard Mervyn Hare, believes in prescriptivism, a popular theory in moral philosophy. The question that arises with regard to Hare’s theory is: Is prescriptivism an objectivist school of thought? The present study attempts to answer this question. Using an analytic and descriptive methodology and comparing Hare’s general prescriptivism with moral objectivism, the study concludes that prescriptivism, despite the fact that some of the components of this theory reflect its objectivity, is not objectivist because of its emphasis on prescription as a criterion of voluntary acts. If Hare continues to adhere to his prescriptivism he will not be an objectivist, but if it is proved that he is a utilitarian [seeking an objective utility), then he is an objectivist.

According to Rooty's version of the tradition of western philosophy, truth, namely, the correspondence between mental beliefs and objective facts , is the main subject of the history of philosophy ; so on this point of view, " truth was detectable, not constructible." However, Rorty says, since we have no way of describing facts but to use language, truth cannot be separated from our practical usage of language for articulating our claims. Because sentences might not exist outside of the mind. Therefor,"truth is constructible, not detectable". Although Rorty rejects the traditional meanings of truth an objectivity, our assumption is that he partly falls right into the realism and objectivism trap, and again truth in the forms of other conceptions appears in his philosophy.

The causality always has been significant in the Thinkers View as a philosophical main Issue. Since denial or acceptance of causality have a direct effect in denial or acceptance of God Existence, as the First cause, both groups of atheist and theist philosophers have examined on this Issue seriously. Sadra According to originality of Being, believes that the Real Existence is Belong to the Self-existent who the other creatures have their own Existence from him. And Hume to deny the existence of God is Inevitable to deny the truth of causation. He with denying the fact of causation hold that what the man knows About Causality is nothing but Imaginations, association and mind habits. Based on that, the God existence imposed as manufacture of the humans mind. The atheism logically and intellectually is the Reason for Denial of the self-evident principle of causation and proof the accidence in the being of the creatures and leads to denial of the reality, Identity and existence of the being. And finally requires the sophistication and nihilism.The main fallacy of Hume in causation analysis is that he analysis the causation separate from the exact of being with the mere mentality. Whereas for correct proving and right analysis of causation it is necessary to considerate the deep link between ontology and epistemology and the relation between the mental world and the real one.

In the classic image of knowledge, the category of ‘reality’, and by extension those of ‘truth’ and ‘justification’, are treated as matters independent from the subject’s mind. Relativists, on the contrary, reject independence of these matters from the subject’s mind and hold that the three, or at least some of them, are shaped under the influence of needs, values and social interests. They are, in other words, ‘social constructs’. Knowledge is therefore a relative matter, varying from society to society and from a society in a certain time to that same society in another time. The result of such an attitude to knowledge is a theory which is known today as ‘epistemological relativism’. Paul Boghossian, contemporary philosopher, is a prominent critic of epistemological relativism. The present paper draws on Boghossian’s views to review and critique a certain type of epistemological relativism which results from ‘constructivism of reality’, demonstrating weaknesses of the theory as well as scrutinising a number of Boghossian’s views in the field.

Following Heidegger, Gadamer looks at history and understanding from the angle of ontology. This is based on his description of man as a being thrown into the world that belongs to history and is primarily affected by it. But his view with regard to history is open to the major criticism that he cannot extract an epistemological principle out of an ontological description of understanding and present a transhistorical criterion to measure the validity and objectivity of interpretation; so he clashes with the challenge of relativism. Yet Gadamer claims that his being accused of relativism is driven by his epistemological view of history, while his proposition delves deeper, dealing with understanding and history at the level of ontology. Gadamer is of the belief that history plays an undeniable role in promoting understanding. Not only do history and language not pose an obstacle to understanding, but they constitute the transporters of truth. Truth is projected to us through history and language. Therefore, a historical approach to understanding does not mean that everyone can tackle a topic in his own way, because though truth is projected in history and language, it is not made by history and language.

According to classical opinion about understanding and interpreting a text, meaning of the text is independent of reading and exists prior to any interpretation of the readers; it depends only to the author's intention. Neopragmatism is a post-modern school which possesses an audience- oriented and subjective hermeneutics and which in its analysis of the process of interpreting text, gives the main role to the interpreter and sees very little portion for the text. In this paper, explaining the theoretical and philosophical fundamentals of neopragmatism's approach to hermeneutics (presented in Richard Rorty's and Stanley Fish's works), we will analyse and criticize this theory and show its weakness and shortcoming.