نشریه پژوهشهای معرفت شناختی
سال نهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 20، پاییز و زمستان 1399)

Love is one of the most important method by which the truth specifically the transcendent affairs will be known. It has been taken into consideration by Plato and Plotinus. It has a vital position in Plotinus’s cosmology, anthropology and epistemology. Accordingly, love linked the oneness as an unknowable thing to human beings as a wise and lover existent. The main issue at this research is to explain this relationship epistemologically. As a result it must be mentioned that the love in epistemological approach because of immediate facing with the truth is the one of the most important way to unify with the oneness and lead human beings to attempt to achieve oneness and unify with it. Love is intuitive path which is emphasized by mystics and most of philosophers particularly phenomenologists who insist on facing the truth without presupposition and precondition. This research by analytical and descriptive method wants to show the importance of love and intuition in Plotinus’s thought by focusing on its important role in the epistemology.

One of the important issues of epistemology is the question of subjective existence and how it is adapted to objective truths. Muslim scholars believe that one must play the role of intermediary. Reflecting on Mulla Sadra's works, we find that she paid close attention to this issue and did not offer a unified view of this research question. Mulla Sadra, in the first place, like most other scholars, believed that nature plays the intermediary role between subjective and objective truths, and that his nature is the specific meaning - the motive in our answer. " The authors believe that Sadr al-Mutallah has departed from this theory in the second step and has stated her particular theory that the purpose of conforming the mind to the same is to objectively conform the supreme existence of the essence to its particular existence. In this approach, Mulla Sadra distinguishes between the ascertained by the real and the self-conscious, and the emergent by the emergent for the perceptual powers of the self, and believes that in this approach the mode of existence is different, one being strong (external) and the other being. Poor, not in nature. Based on five reasons - Mulla Sadra's view of the nature, rational perception, substance movement, authenticity and form of existence - the authors believe that the second theory is more compatible with Mulla Sadra's philosophical system and can be referred to as Sadra's final theory.

Beside to postmodern approaches, on the one hand, and the positivism, on the other hand, certain aspects of social epistemology is capable to both defending some type of objectivity in the realm of science and cause to dialogue between those two camp. After introducing social epistemology in brief, in this paper, we show problematic aspects of those approaches and then show what aspects of social epistemology could serve to defend some type of objectivity in the realm of science, especially, in the philosophical atmosphere of our country, this moderate approach could be fruitful. According to social epistemology, the agent neither is absolutely free from social and political obligations, neither is absolutely dependent on such obligations. In other word, based on truth conductivity, social epistemology holds a moderate approach to objectivity of science. This may serve as a means to create a new approach to objectivity. 

The pride of the scientific community from the earliest times, has repeatedly been mentioned about their research and their results because of their rationality. But why does the scientific community insist on claiming the rationality of its research? Does this insist on their research method? Or is there any significant advancement in science and technology and the problems of humanity and its justification? Scientific rationality is constructed from a set of conditions, claims, methods, and research purposes of the scientific community, which explains the nature and structure of scientific advances; as Newton-Smith states: "Each scientific rational model must at least two things Logically and substantiated; one is the goal of science and the other is the set of principles that we need to evaluate competing theories (Newton-Smith, 1981: 4) In this paper, we aim to provide an emphasis on scientific rationality by evaluating the science of science in John Watkins's philosophy of science, and providing an equitable basis for scientific excellence and providing the necessary conditions for achieving the optimal aim of science and the methods of selecting competing theories in John Watkins's philosophy of science Evaluated.

The discussion of mind and reality and the relation between the two, apart from its prevalence in earlier philosophy, especially Islamic philosophy, is also one of the new debates in philosophy and epistemology. In the present article, below the debate, we will deal with the key issues such as intentionality, the relation between mind and reality, and ultimately the secondary concepts from Farabi’s perspective. Farabi in his various works and texts has been more or less consider to the discussion of the above issues. From his works and texts can be deduced that in his discussion of intentionality, he views knowledge (mind) as belonging to reality; he also gives a considerable explanation of the relation between mind and reality or , in another words, knower and known; And for the first time in Islamic philosophy, he has considered secondary concepts and has clearly distinguished them from primary concepts, though he has not been deal with philosophical secondary concepts which fills the void of mind and reality. Farabi has been preparing in these discussions, and from this point, influencing later Islamic philosophers such as Ibn-e Sina, Nasir ul-Din Tusi, and Sadr ul-Mutaallehin.

The question of "the origin of ideas and concepts" is one of the most important issues in the new age of Western philosophy. In this article I have attempted to provide an analysis of the process of formation and importance of this issue during this period. I have shown in this analysis: The first step in the formation of this problem was the presentation of the Idea of innate ideas by the rationalists of new age, which is due to some of their metaphysical foundations and views, rather than answering an explicit and independent question called "the origin of ideas and concepts". At this stage, although the question of "the origin of ideas and concepts" has been raised in some way, it has not yet emerged as a serious and independent issue. In the second step, John Locke with the aim of rejecting of the Idea of innate ideas, for the first time explicitly and directly raising the question of "the origin of ideas and concepts" and discussing it seriously and in detail. Leibniz's re-defense of innate ideas against Locke's attacks, has led to the explicit formation of dualism of Rationalism and Empiricism for the first time, and thus making this debate particularly important. In the third and final step, Hume, by linking the fate of very important issues such as the possibility of Science and Metaphysics to the question of "the origin of ideas and concepts", makes it a matter of immense value that it never had before.

As a Kant, Cassirer saw the only path to human cognition through forms of mental and abstract concepts that are in fact human cognitive tools; but on the other hand he deeply believed that these forms were not limited to rational models only. But irrational forms and patterns also play a role in the process of human knowledge. Because the logic of human consciousness has not always been rational, and human senses and emotions have been involved in shaping his cognitive forms. In the meantime, he presents "Myth" as one of the most important forms of human cognition and introduces the features and contents of this form of human knowledge. The main purpose of this article is to separate and layer the contents introduced by Cassirer from this epistemological form based on the three indicators of "being fixed", "fundamental" and "their extent of influence" on other contents. The results of this study, based on a careful reading of Cassirer's ideas in this regard, contain the contents of the cognitive system of mythological consciousness in the form of five layers: "fundamental confrontation", "laws", "mediators", "special categories" and " Perceptions” were separated. Accordingly, all of this content is based on the fundamental "Holy / unholy" opposition that occupies the central core of this consciousness. Also, these contents, based on their proximity to the central core of this cognitive system, have more stability and have a wider impact on the outer and posterior layers.

abstract Undubtly, One of the most influential movements in the world today is hermeneutics. This approach has been changed from the beginning to the present, due to the advent of various thinkers. Gadamer is the most intelligent and most radical advocate of a bunch of heroines, from which it is referred to as philosophical hermeneutics.in the other side, derrida Represents a stream of metaphysics challenging the western presence of the metaphysics, which does not trust the hermeneutics and the centrality of the understanding it derives from. This article will take a brief look at the history of hermeneutics, while examining the paradigms of thought of the two thinkers in question, focusing on the famous Gadamer and Derrida debate at the Goethe-Institut de Paris, using descriptive-analytic methods and using library and Internet resources, challenge The most important lies in the debate. The main question of the paper is as follows: The Challenge between "Understanding" and "Other" How is this debate analyzed? Such readings can serve as methodological guides to other epistemic areas in order to develop unconventional reading approaches.

This essay intends to discuss the famous proposition I think, therefore I exist, with a critical approach. At first, some preliminaries will be said concerning Descartes’s general way in his epistemological system, which can be called methodic doubt and then we will give an account of the two well-known general approaches to the interpretation of this proposition among Descartes’s interpreters: inferential approach and intuition's. In this inquiry, Focusing on Meditations and considering evidences from other works of Descartes, we will attempt to give an account of Descartes’s view on the problem of I and also his own doctrines about thought and existence of I. It seems that Descartes' system of knowledge suffers a gap in justifying coexistence of consciousness with perception of thoughts and ideas and their being belonged to a single subject. The claim of the main part of the essay is that, opposed to his methodological demands, Descartes has laid down as a principle the a priori knowledge of the nature of self and has a particular presupposition about I: I as a substance with certain attributes. We called this the problem of the presupposition of substance. In fact, the substance-quality structure have a tacit but effective activity in Descartes’s system of knowledge at depth. The present essay is an attempt to make explicit this fact by investigating inconsistency in application of Descartes' method، and also some semantic difficulties of "I" in Cogito Ergo Sum.

In this paper, having described the problem of objectivity, I’ll try to reconstruct the solutions of two important philosophers, Kant and Wittgenstein, and then I’ll attempt to deal with the different consequences of these two divergent attitudes regarding some of our most significant epistemic-semantic concepts. The problem of Objectivity concerns with the question that, what is the source of the ‘objective validity’ or ‘objective reference’ of our representations (mental or linguistic), and what makes them something totally different from some ‘arbitrary impressions’ and ‘mere appearances’? Kant’s response to this question is to rely on the transcendental structure of human mind, particularly the pure categories of the understanding, and Wittgenstein’s response is to advert to the normative structure of social institution or practice; i.e. they try to explain the objectivity of our representations in terms of, respectively, the subjectivity and the intersubjectivity. And in the final part, I’ll try to show that these two different attitudes to the problem of objectivity, give rise to totally different pictures of some of our most important epistemic-semantic concepts: truth, concept-application, conceptual scheme, rationality, and the appropriate form of the field of philosophy of science.