مجله تاملات فلسفی
پیاپی 22 (بهار و تابستان 1398)

Death is major issues that is common to all human. A comparative study of this issue from the perspective of St, Augustine and Mulla sadra is an effective and beneficial step toward our understanding of this problem Augustine according to Christian teaching especially St Paul’s introduces death based on original sin and other sins and said the main cause of death is sin. He believes that in the creation human must benefits eternal life is didn’t commit sin. But the original sin of Adam and Eve since the conception of the human race was in their death penalty as a just took it for all human. But Mulla sadra does not accept effect of original sin, however he agree with St, Augustine the human intentional sin can kill the soul. In addition Mulla sadra regards to substantial motion theory believes that natural death is one of the existential perfection of mankind stages but those two philosophers despite of all differences, emphasize the common feature of natural death such as necessity, generality and being a favor .also they believed that volitional death means the cultivation of the soul and to eradicate the sensory instincts and disconnect the soul from the body of Salek s (spiritual traveler) will and its effect. They consider death as beginning of new life and call it a way to get to God.

Representing and analyzing of classical islamic thoughts in the language of contemporary philosophy can be very fruitful. In this paper, I review Ryle's thesis on "self" and then explain this idea according to Mulla-Sadra. Ryle believes that "I" is not a name to indicate something, but it is just an "index word" which is somehow equivalent to adverbs and signyfies a person who presents it. By use of linguistic analysis, he finds this supposition that says when "I" cannot be replaced by "my body", then it must refer to "non body", is not true. Besides, self-consciousness is higher order performance above self. On the other hand, Mulla-Sadra sees "I" as an existance which has different aspects and in spite of subtlity can be sensitive, imaginational or reasonable. So "I" in all applications has a unique meaning that shows some reality which occured in that seat without any virtual denotations. As a result, we see that existantial viewpoint of Mulla-Sadra is accompanied by interesing discussions on linguistic analysis.

We interact with our environment depends on our understanding and attitude it. This interaction can be based on relational hegemonic subjective view between human, the environment and the creatures, as we see in modern thought, a relation which is the underlying cause of creation and aggravation of contemporary environmental crisis. In contrary, another relation can be considered according to which human, confronting the world, does not intend to dominate the world and the environment but possesses a relation based on familiarity and kinship to the world, the nature, and environment. Among contemporary thinkers, Heidegger’s thought refers to a relation to the environment based on which environmental crisis can be overcome. His thought endows rational credit to the issues in this area. It is shown in this article that Heidegger’s thought about the reality of the existence and the dwelling can change our view to human’s relation to himself, the world, and his understanding of each of them. Therefore, based on the concept of dwelling and referring to the meaning of the earth and the nature in his thought, it is examined another way of the confrontation of human and the environment and the earth, a way based on the nature of dwelling according to which human has a relation to them in the position of a maintainer and inheritor of the earth and creatures.

In Islamic philosophy, the rule of impossibility of impression of big things in a small place has been used to prove the immateriality of their abstracts, imaginations and perceptual powers, as well as the place where the partial images of visual and imaginary images (figurative forms) are used. Thus, one of the reasons for the immateriality of the imaginal world as well as the immateriality of the soul and its powers is the impossibility of supposing large imaginary forms in the material place of brain. In this article, by collecting the philosophical applications of this principle and extracting their shared bases, the views of the proponents and opponents of it were discussed and, according to new physiology, it has been shown that the cases, which have been cited by the ancients philosophers were not considered as the impossibility of impression of big things in a small place. Thus, not all the arguments that have been arisen in the theology of Islamic philosophy through this rule were correct; and other proofs are needed to prove the claims. Accordingly, it is necessary to revise this rule in the philosophical applications.

One of the challenges posed about human rights in Kant's practical philosophy is his racist statements. At the first glance, these statements seem contraversial to the spirit of his thinking. Some Kant scholars have justified that and some others have emphasized the existence of such conflict. In our opinion, Despite Kant's racist statements, his moral theory is immune from racist approach and has a universal form that emphasizes the preservation of the dignity of all human beings as a social- moral duty. In this article, w first consider the position of Anthropology in Kant's thought as a framework in which his racial views are outlined. Then regard his theory of race (philosophy of race) and racist statements. After that we examine the challenge between these views and the spirit of his thinking and explain and evaluate the views of Kant scholars as to this issue and allocate the final section to conclusion.

The relation between moral life and pleasure and pain is one of the most important philosophical questions. do the moral person necessarily enjoy more pleasure in his life and his moral practice? Or not. The relation between moral states and pleasures is complex in Aristotle's philosophy. According to our understanding of him, moral life is not necessarily enjoyable; but this does not mean there is not any relationship between morality and pleasure and pain. For Aristotle, moral states are in the realm of pleasure and pain, and pleasure is the result of moral action, that is, the goodness of an action is not because of it’s pleasurable, unlike, an action is pleasurable because of it’s goodness. This means that one is for the sake of pleasure and avoidance of pain, which does bad actions, and avoids moral actions; but the virtuous man enjoys his moral work; So enjoying the moral act is a sign of the character of the virtuous man. This view of Aristotle has had important implication in educating our emotions from the beginning of childhood, and it can be said that the basis of ethical knowledge is based on the interference in pleasure and pain in human life. This view of Aristotle has had important consequences of guiding our emotions since childhood. In his view, guiding and controlling pleasure and pain is important and strength to a moral character and moral life combined with pleasure.

There are different approaches about whether abortion is right or wrong each of which has answered this question from a different perspective. Richard Dawkins is one of the advocates of the Theory of Evolution who has tried to investigate abortion based on this theory. Applying library method in this article, his theory has been analytically studied and the major criticisms for his theory have been propounded. Due to the importance of Dawkins' explanations regarding the Theory of Evolution and his scientific books for the general public, it is necessary to study and analyze his answer to the issue of abortion. The findings of this article indicate that Dawkins' reasoning in support of abortion not only has theoretical problems, but also creates practical problems which are contrary to his pragmatistic and consequentialistic inclination. Although his line of reasoning does not work for abortion, it can be used to defend animal rights due to its premises.

The naturalistic approaches to ethics try to find some solution to problems of moral philosophy with an emphasis on finding of empirical science. One of the most famous naturalistic approaches to ethics is evolutionary approach. Evolutionary explanations of morality have always been accused of committing naturalistic fallacy. The naturalistic fallacy has two Humean and Moorian versions. Hume's reading, also known as deductive version of the naturalist fallacy, suggests that the inference of values from facts is a kind of fallacy. Moore's version of naturalistic fallacy, says that defining moral properties based on immoral properties, and in particular natural properties, is impossible. In this article, after introducing Ruse's evolutionary ethics, his reasons for not having been committed to naturalistic fallacies are brought. Then we answer this question if he really avoided the fallacies. Our answer to this question is yes. But, along with critics like Rottscheafer and Martinsen, we will show that the cost of avoiding these fallacies has been to discarding the objectivity of ethics.Would Ruse without endorsing an illusionary and subjective account of morality avoid the naturalistic fallacy? We will demonstrate that such a reading can be offered by giving a greater role to culture. Thus, the purpose of the article is to oppose the Ruse's illusionary readings of morality and to defend an objectivist reading. In our opinion, elements of this reading can also be found in the work of the Ruse himself and will be offered at the end of the article.

Mulla Sadra has two different approaches to the principle of authenticity of existence and validity of the nature of the two. This separation is due to the fact that he mentions in the explanation of the principle of the originality of existence in some positions that sometimes indicate the realization of the causal nature, and sometimes necessitates the denial of any external realization of nature. This difference has caused Sadra to have two attitudes toward some issues in his philosophical system, which in most of these positions, his ultimate attitude is based on the rejection of the realization of the nature of the outside world. In the present study, based on this index, some of the ontological consequences of the principle of the originality of existence, including the general nature of the problem, the review of the nature and identity of objects, the theory of important motion and the formation of existence in existence has been studied. In this study, the author tried to explain the different views of Mulla Sadra on the authenticity of existence, and ultimately explain his final views on each of these issues.

For a long time, philosophers have considered contemplative knowledge and thinking to be the specific perfection of the human species. The question is how is the relationship between thought and theoretical reflection with action? According to the relation between theory and practice in the fields arises the two thinkers? Is it merely a commentator of Aristotle or Avicenna has also developed his ideas? If it develop in all aspects or have been neglected it in parts? What is the "relative Causality " of opinion and practice in Aristotle and Avicenna? The relationship between theory and practice can be studied under twofold issues: First, the relationship between theoretical and practical potential in terms of epistemology; The relationship between knowledge and action manifested in mysticism, happiness, politics, ethics and prophecies that speak of it as practical wisdom. Discussion and action in Aristotle's and Avicenna`s views that all of these approaches; Accordingly, the relationship between practical and theoretical reason and practical wisdom of Aristotle and Avicenna with Relying on the " Causality " approach considered.

This Article has Critical investigated for development of Putnam's pragmatism and has presented of Putnam's critiques to different dualities, Claim of The Collapse of the Fact/Value Dichotomy and end of Putnam's pragmatism that resulted to problem of "Ontology possibility" and to issue pronounces the death of Ontology. Then with view of comparative, we expressed Aristotle's opinion about duality of Theoria and Praxis; and "Separation of Morality" has investigated as Aristotle's best solution for problem of "Ontology possibility". At the end of article we explained that contrary to Putnam's critiques to his previous comments and his try for free of different dualities; Putnam's pragmatism have not separation of duality of Theoria and Praxis. On Putnam's philosophy as "Metaphysical Realism" to "Internal Realism" and "Pragmatic Pluralism", Accompanied with "duality of Theoria and Praxis" and Accordingly, development of Putnam's pragmatism and his tendency to Ethics, just explained with impact of the Aristotelian duality of theoria and praxis. In this way, Unlike Putnam's opinion, his critiques on Metaphysic has not Confirmed to Rejection of Ontology but But this critiques, reminds us that important of "Separation of Morality" in Contemporary Philosophy and Reconsidering on Aristotle's philosophy.