نشریه فلسفه
سال چهل و هفتم شماره 1 (بهار و تابستان 1398)

Beaty is a metaphysiical and transcendental attribute in Thomas and is connected to Being. Beauty as a transcendental attribute of Being, needs to Being alone. Form is a original concept in aesthetics of Thomas Aquinas and is base of beauty of all things. all of things that Thomas says about Beauty, imply that beauty is based on the Form. In the philosophy of Thomas the form of a thing is connected to perfection and actuality of that thing. then Beauty is inseparable of actuality. The form of a thing is internal norm of beauty of that thing; and in the same time, three conditions of beauty that Thonmad numerate; i.e integrity, harmony and claruty; all of them represent to concept of beauty. on the other side, Thomas connects beauty with knowledge and the perception of a beautiful thing propose a epistemological one, because beuty is connected to the form. seeing or perception are act that the perceeper in the perception process percepts a formal reality. percept of beauty is percept and abstract of the form of a beautiful thing. then we can presopose form as a mediate between the reality and the mind, because the form is the intellectual side of a beautiful thing and is base of a reality.

The problem of knowledge and level of human knowledge of objects is one of the important issues of the history of thought and philosophy. Hakim Mulla'abdolrazzagh Lahiji (1072 AH) and John Locke (1632-1704) are among the philosophers who have investigated the subject of knowledge and level of human knowledge. Mohaghghegh e Lahiji believes in a theory that in Islamic philosophy refers to it as a "Phantasm of Representative" (Shabah e Mohaki).In his book, Shavaregh Al-Elham, he states that we when knowledge to objects do not achieve in the their essence and reality, but achieve the phantasm that represent from the outer object. John Locke, also, in his precious book, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding , recognizes two different meanings of essence and distinguishes between the real essence and the nominal essence of objects, and knows our knowledge of things about their nominal essence. The similarity between Lahiji and Locke is that both know power of human are more limited than they are to achieve the reality and the essence of objects, but they differ in the quiddity of knowledge and perception.

Although the conflict between freedom and system (The concept which is derived from the Greek word συνίστημι) has been always the subject of philosophical debate, there were German idealists who first formulated the relation between these two concepts explicitly. Here the system, which guarantees the coherence of knowledge, is a subjective and rational foundation. But Heidegger in his later thought, passed through the concept of system which its structure is determined by mathematical order, and hence has absolutely subjective implications, and instead used the concept of fugue to refer to the structure of Being’s swaying, i.e. the enowning event (Ereignis). However, the concept of Fugue does not involve the same rules as system does, but this structure has its own order. The privileged feature of this order is preserving the unity components, while every component is also self-confident. It is notable that in this structure, the self-confidence of every component is even strengthen by its freedom. Thus, the concept of Fugue let Heidegger think of a systematic structure (fugue) which is not against of freedom, but also freedom is its foundation.

According to the current view regarding the principality of existence and the fictitiousness of quiddity, these two properties of principality and fictitiousness can be reduced to essential truth and accidental truth on external reality. Hence, not only the quiddity does not have any share of reality in the external world, but also it doesn’t represent anything beyond itself. According to my view, such interpretation of the concept of principality of existence cannot be documented and also clearly contradicts Sadra’s own words on this matter. The origin of this misconception can be found in the way the issue has been raised, discussed and argued for by Sadra as well as presupposing of a kind of entailment between truth and external realization by the proponents of the above interpretation. I will also show that regardless of its connection with Sadra, this interpretation as an independent philosophical theory in its own right might oppose our common sense intuition and be in need of sufficient arguments and more importantly and decisively, lacks the necessary internal coherence and involves certain unreasonable implications.

We often define Technic as a category of instrument and tools produced by a technician; We do so in the case of Art; A category of works such as paintings, sculpture, architecture, poems, etc. created by an artist. In an ontical approach, such humanistic definitions are so correct; But if we look for the essence of things and want to determine their ontological status, the correct definitions are not enough; Because the essence of everything is that which allows it to be what it is. According to this, the essence of Technic and Art can not be determined merely by the technician or the artist, and also by their artifacts. In this paper, it has been tried to determine the ontological status of Technic and Art - based on the ratio of human to Being - from the viewpoint of Hidegger; And considering that he recognizes different periods of history as ages of Being and believes that Being has revealed itself in various forms - including Poiesis and Gestell – in each age, to answer this question why this thinker has called the ancient Greek as the age of Art and the present day as the age of Technic.

.Hegel explains development of spirit through evolution sensational consciousness, self-consciousness, reason, spirit, religion and Absolute Wisdom. The consciousness and self-consciousness move in the cultural history . In fact, the consciousness is not the stable, but that transmit steps of history live. The consciousness moves with dialectical method in history context. In the respect, knowledge is considered as a dynamic fact and self-discovery. This historicity perspective is to be situated consciousness in the human practice. By Hegel, no consciousness can pure reason. Mannheim set the knowledge into social situation. Consideration at knowledge base make it in the social situation, and emit pure position. Hegel place knowledge to history context and Mannheim attach it to social context. They pass customary epistemological tradition. Mannheim in some basic concepts such as history, ideology, false consciousness, action, totality, knowledge, and truth has influenced of the Phenomenology of Spirit and it has developed in knowledge sociology

Within the contemporary literature, there is a well-known narration of the history of the problem of primacy of existence according to which Ibn Sina, Suhrawardi and Sadra plays the leading roles and Mirdamad has the supporting role: Ibn Sina introduces the supper-addition of existence to the essence in mind; Suhrawardi denies that this distinction is in reality; Mirdamad reconstruct this problem as to whether existence or essence is primarily exist; and finally, Sadra introduces the thesis of primacy of existence. We will argue that all these historical data is incorrect. First, it was historically controversial whether Ibn Sina's distinction between existence and essence was something in reality or purely in mind. Second, after Ibn Sina there was a vast debate on this problem among the followers of the peripatetic philosophers and their opponents. Third, Suhrawardi is just one of the enemies of the followers of the peripatetic philosophers who argue against the distinction of existence and essence in reality. Forth, the only text based on which the introduction of the problem of the primacy of existence is ascribed to Mirdamad is not Mirdamad's. Fifth, Mirdamad and Sadra actually engaged in the traditional problem of the distinction of existence and essence in reality.

The present paper is studying Farabi’s approach to the nature of language as a philosophical topic. The goal of this paper is to draw a picture of nature of language in his philosophical system. As a result of this research, Farabi believes that (while he explains three meanings of notq) language has two levels, : 1) Internal level or what is in mind, i.e., intellectual and imaginary understanding, those – as Farabi maintains - which are definition of the perceptual world; 2) Surface level or the words, which are expression of the 1st part or level of language, and these two levels are based on intellect, as third meaning of notq. In his definition of language, Farabi adds a factor of speaker’s intention of expression. As a result, language, to Farabi, is not just a means of conveyance of words, but forming of the meanings as well as expression of those meanings constitute language. It seems that language has no a single essence, since nature of language for different people depends on how they use their intellect and also how their use of language is based on logic. On the other hand, forming of the intellectual and imaginary understanding of people is different. Method of this paper is descriptive and analytical.