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

Depressive disorder is one of the most common disorders that humans have been infected with throughout their lives. Considering the factors of this disorder, its cognitive and ontological symptoms, and despite all the psychological research done about it, there is still a gap in philosophical research in this field. Accordingly, the main question of the present research is: What is the perspective of Mulla Sadra regarding some cognitive symptoms of depression such as feelings of absurdity and sadness? The authors studied the views of Mulla Sadra with a descriptive-analytical method. The results show that the feeling of absurdity in humans is rooted in not finding the meaning of life, so that with a correct perception of the meaning of life this feeling and the resulting depression can be overcome to a great extent. Mulla Sadra believes that the cosmic end of the creation is the return to the supreme good, i.e. God. In this return, the human being, due to his/her exalted position among other creatures can have a volitional journey beside the cosmic one. In other words, two ends are defined for the human being: Cosmic and legislative. Moreover, by dividing sadness and happiness into the four types of sensory, imaginary, estimative, and intellectual, it is possible to better understand the types and levels of happiness and sadness. As a matter of fact, Mulla Sadra’s views give this insight that the feeling of sadness in depression is caused because a depressed person wrongly think that something is disagreeable with his/her nature.

The meaningful relationship between life and human sciences and its impact on the direction of humanities are one of the fundamental issues that has been less considered by thinkers, despite their immense importance. Of course, the debate about the meaning, absurdity of life and the nature of meaning of life are one of the topics that has always been the subject of discussion and its explanation is still the concern of philosophers and thinkers; each of them has tried to find a way to make life meaningful as per their own particular foundations, thus to supposedly illustrate an irreversible future for mankind. On the other hand, scholars in the humanities believe that they have employed their scientific efforts to pursue a better life for humanity. However, very few of them have directed their scientific endeavors towards a proper orientation of the sciences. Among the few insightful philosophers whose scientific efforts can be interpreted in the direction of elucidating the meanings of life, the late Allameh Misbah Yazdi stands out. Having clarified "the meaning of life" in his view, this paper aims to explain its impact on the necessary orientation of the humanities towards realizing the human meaning of life according to the monotheistic insight.

This article aims to reassess the concepts of power, resistance, and subjectivity by examining the ideas of Hannah Arendt and Michel Foucault. At first glance, it seems that these two thinkers, rooted in different philosophical and theoretical foundations, are in opposition to each other, making a dialogue between their perspectives seemingly impossible. However, this article proposes an alternative approach by highlighting the common grounds and commonalities in their deconstruction of power. Moreover, it argues that their political views can be seen as aligned and complementary, leading to a deepening and development of each other's ideas and the creation of new political approaches. Thus, the central questions addressed in this article are: what forms of agency emerge for the contemporary subject as result of the deconstruction of power in thought of Arendt and Foucault? How does power act as a source of resistance while opening up new possibilities for the subject? The main finding of this study is that, in contrast to traditional and modern interpretations, power in the works of these thinkers is seen as a positive, creative, and productive concept. Based on this understanding, resistance and alternative forms of empowerment for the subject emerge. It should be noted, however, that Arendt’s and Foucault’s interpretation of resistance agency and power may differ due to the primacy of political and social issues in their respective theories.

Religious spirituality faces various challenges in the new world. One of these challenges is the question of meaningfulness or emptiness of life. While in the traditional world, few thinkers see life as empty and absurd, today there are many such views toward life that are in contrast to the spiritual view of it. This paper addresses the challenge that this view creates for religious spirituality and a spiritual view of life. We first review different approaches to the meaning of life -naturalism, supernaturalism, non-naturalism, and absurdism. We then consider three different readings of absurdity. These readings are formulated based on lack of purpose, lack of value, and unattainable aspirations. Various solutions have been proposed to deal with absurdity, such as rebellion, abandoning the aspirations, reconstruction of values, and ironic confrontation with existence. The proposal of the article is presented in several points: First, the meaning of life should be considered as "life narrative"; and such an approach to the meaning of life is different from purely argumentative approaches to the meaning of life. Second, it is possible to judge between different narratives based on theoretical and practical rationality. Third, religious spirituality, by adding elements to our belief system, can make our narrative of life meaningful and free us from the challenge of absurdity.

According to Craig, if there is no God and immortality then the universe, mankind and each individual person are without ultimate meaning, value and purpose and, in consequence, they would be absurd. Since it is impossible to live happily in an absurd world, an atheist has no other choice than to bring meaning, value and purpose into his life in one way or another. But he is not entitled to do so, because meaningful, valuable and purposeful life depend on belief in God and immortality. An atheist should, therefore, live either unhappily but consistently with his atheistic position or happily but not consistently with his position. Craig concludes that Christianity provides the two conditions necessary for a meaningful, valuable, and purposeful life, namely God and immortality, and because of this, a Christian can live consistently and happily. Finally, he presents methods for defending the Christian position on the meaning of life.

The question about the “meaning of life” is an inquiry deeply rooted inside all human beings. Thus, the man has always been in search of a persuasive answer to it so that he may be able to achieve the spiritual tranquility by relying on that answer, and become hopeful in his life. That question is among the questions arisen for all those who arrive at a deep self-awareness. By the deep self-awareness, we mean human’s attention to his own existence, to the question about where he has come from, where he is going to, and what the philosophy and goal of his life are. The philosophers have presented various interpretations regarding the meaning and the goal of life. Some of those interpretations are materialistic and some others are unrealistic and imaginary. In contrast, some philosophers seek the meaning of life in theism. In monotheistic worldview based on Islamic teachings, the life becomes meaningful with faith in God and servitude to Him. In this article, we seek to investigate this issue form the viewpoint of Islamic teachings.

In his two articles, J. E. Moore refers to two sentences in each one there is contradiction between the starting part of the sentence and the ending part of it and this is named Moor’s paradox: “I went to the pictures last Tuesday, but I don’t believe that I did” “I believe that he has gone out, but he has not”. The paradox, Moore thinks, is in the controversy between the paradoxical and absurdly speech one says on himself in one side and the truthfulness of that speech in the other. There are several problems about this paradox and one of them is that this paradox is related to not only the assertion but also the belief, thought and desires. The other problem is that in relation to the paradox we have to distinct the omissive version of it: “p but I don’t believe that p” from the commissive version of it: “I believe that p but ~p”. the discovery of this paradox is regarded by Wittgenstein as the most important act of Moore in which a certain meaningless and absurdity has been revealed and he speaks of the deeply impact of it on him. This research will assess Moore’s paradox regarding his commentator’s views notably Wittgenstein.

Moore’s sentences are sentences of the form “p but I don't believe that p” or “p but I believe that not-p”. These sentences are called the omissive and the commissive form of Moorean sentence, respectively. These sentences might be true, yet they are ‘absurd’ to believe. It is usually claimed that absurdity only occurs when these sentences are formulated in the present tense, but if they are expressed in the past tenses or future tenses they would not be absurd. In this paper, we will analyze the Moore’s sentences in various tenses: past, present, and future. In this respect we employ a logic which is a combination of hybrid tense logic and doxastic logic. Then by formalizing the Moore’s sentences in various tenses we show that, contrary to popular belief, the past and future versions are not necessarily absurd. Finally, we give a necessary and sufficient condition for determining the absurdity of the Moore’s sentences

Some biblical exegetes like Peter Kreeft, believe that the main issue of Ecclesiastes is the problem of the meaning of life and absurdity. By an analytic approach, this article seeks to show that the meaning of the meaning of life in Ecclesiastes is the goal of the highest good. Many people choose wisdom, pleasure, wealth and power, duty and religion as the highest good, but Ecclesiastes makes clear that these things alone dont give meaning to the life and the life without the presence of God is absurd. The highest good is God and being in love with Him. By awareness of the absurdity of mundane aspects of life, one’s intellect becomes silent and by hearing the call of God, his heart truly believes in Him and finally, falls in a loving relationship with Him; so he finds the life meaningful.

“Meaningfulness of life” is one of the most important issues of human life. Not responding to the question “what is the meaning of life?” drag life into aimlessness and absurdity.One of the doctrines of divine religions is the meaningfulness of life. Methodical studies on verses of Qur‟an has shown that it is the most complete book which has put the most attentions on issue of life has introduced life meaningfully. Qur‟an‟s notion about earthly life is that, it can be decent or indecent but life is not indecent and is in close connection with Hereafter. For better understanding of meaning of life, Qur‟an has invited all to study the secrets of creation.In this paper the reasons for meaningful life from the perspective of Qur‟an is examined and effective meaning-giving reason on life is analyzed.

Among those people who regard the existence of whole world as deriving from accident and disregard the law of causality, some only attribute the emergence of individual beings to accident and maintain that in the genesis of material individual entities we can not disregard accident and defend the concept of causal necessity.
Aristotle besides believing in the law of causality throughout the universe, understands chance ad accident among causes.
But he does not believe in the conformity and affinity of chance and accident with necessity and considers accident and necessity as two opposite poles. Also Ibn Sina following the head of Peripatetics deals with the problem of chance and accident and thinks it does not contradict the law of causality. But in the framework of his specific cosmology and a different perception of existential causality explains them and does not consider them the real and positive causes of things and somewhat proceeds the discussion more successfully than Aristotle. But finally it is worth discussing which philosophical problem makes Aristotle and Ibn Sina to adopt such a position as regards chance and accident. This subject needs more investigation in the case of Ibn Sina. Because by accepting the best possible world, existence and sovereignty of causal necessity in the world and fore knowledge of Most High to creatures, there remains no place for such theories as chance and accident which has a more vulgar rather than a philosophical aspect and is deriving from man's ignorance with true causes.