نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 37 (بهار و تابستان 1399)

In Logik der Forschung, Popper points out that in the logic of science as he has outlined, it would be possible to avoid using the concepts of ‘true’ and ‘false’. But Popper’s point of view on truth changed fundamentally after he became acquainted with Tarski’s semantic theory of truth, and after that he never doubted to introduce science “as the search for truth”. Although, Popper’s specific reading of Tarski’s semantic theory of truth has been criticized by some philosophers, but most of these criticisms are intended to show that Popper’s version of truth can’t be concluded from the genuine Tarski’s theory. In this paper, I will argue that even if we ignore the mentioned criticisms, yet we can show that the correspondence, objective and absolute concept of truth, considering his metaphysical idea about reality (i.e. reality has infinitely or indefinitely many layers), would be inefficient in his philosophy of science, or at best, it’s efficiency will be minimum. So, if the following arguments are successful, the concept of truth will not be able to play an important role in Popper’s philosophy of science.

One of the points of strength of the approach of Dewey to art lies in the fact that he has a dynamic vision of the nature of art. The current essay seeks to provide an appropriate answer regarding the question of the diversity of forms of artistic forms in contemporary era based on the explication of creation of work of art focusing on the notion of aesthetic experience in the ideas of John Dewey. The nature of art it has a better capability as regards the explication of the diversity and evolutions of the forms of artistic expression in the contemporary era. What makes the meaning of the works with this extension understandable for the audience is the artist's taking advantage of the historical and cultural element called emotion. By changing the primary crude emotion into a refined emotion the artist takes advantage of the symbolic and meaningful systems and invites the audience to experience the life world. The work of art is an extra-real object in the world. In aesthetic experience selection and taking advantage of the past meanings and symbols enriches the form. Form unites the emotion, act of expression, media, and system of symbols, knowledge and interaction. Degrees of collection and connectivity of these factors and also communicative and contextual factors that constitute a spectrum of the forms and it is in this way that the form of work of art in the contemporary world goes beyond its material form

Reason is reliable tool for solving and controlling the crisis at any level. Some thinkers have accepted only scientific rationality or its superiority and others expanded the scope of rationality, thus it includes human’s operations in the area of daily life and moral evaluation. There is no hegemonic and dominate rationality in the systems rationality and cannot be said that a special rationality forms the life of human. In this form of social rationality, every social subsystem based on its degree sensitivity, which is called resonance, will respond to changes and environmental disorder, just like human’s feeling of empathy. This reaction is necessary for the health and survival of subsystem and society (environment). In the face of the crisis due to Coronavirus disease, subsystems are moving from the own their path in the direction of general purpose. The rationality of subsystem cannot overcome the consequence of crisis alone. The problematic impact of some societies with this disease and its crisis despite they have strong economic rationality and active and advanced scientific rationality, probably it is due to over reliance on scientific and economic rationality. To illustrate the weakness of scientific rationality in in two cases, one of the limitation of human rationality and the other encouraging people to change in lifestyle, first by examining the data collected through the study of library and web search, we deal with the expression of influence scope of human’ rationality and the critic of scientific and technological rationality and then we explain systemic rationality.

Doubtless, any topic of humanities had been affected by Darwinian evolutionary theory in past century. Since evolution by means of natural selection founded on a base of a political right-wing economic theory, there were some social materialists whom looked for a middle way between both evolutionary and left sides theories. Their hopes and efforts probably increased due to recognition of role of cooperation in resent new Darwinian evolutionary approaches like multi-level selection theory. Singer’s book, A Darwinian Left, could consider as such efforts. Although, his effort in five short chapters is for providing an intermediate compatible explanation of the principles of evolution and leftism ideas but it looks that it is difficult to accept his explanations even by redact some essential concept in left side because not only still metaphysical priority of competition against cooperation are considered in any recent evolution by means of natural selection theories but also political right-wing and any evolutionary theory by priority of competition are conceptually both sides of a coin.

One of the reasons of the Relativism about Science is the impossibility of justifying scientists' decisions about conflicting or alternative scientific theories. Relativism argues that there is a situation in which scientists can never judge between alternative theories. From the point of view of the article, an alternative theory can only challenge scientific rationality if the two conditions of “methodological shortcomings of scientists” and “the existence of alternative theories” are established at a given time of decision-making. A major trend against relativism is the attempt to complement and equip scientists' methodology when confronting alternative theories. However, this article focuses on the study and evaluation of the “possibility of alternative theory”. To this end, we try to point out the various definitions of this concept in order to justify “alternativeness” of a theory. The important condition of independence from the current theory must be met. For this purpose, there must be a “complete formulation” of competing theories. According to this article, achieving this complete formulation to enumerate all the explanatory capabilities and empirical implications of the theory is a matter of history and depends on the emergence of the next successful theory. Therefore, only “after making a decision” a theory can be justified as “alternative”. Thus, the relativist claim is inconsistent because it must first accept the validity of the scientists' decision in order to attribute the alternative to a theory.

The present article is a Comparative Study of Origination and Eternity of the World Based on the Viewpoints of Thomas Aquinas and Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaei in an analytic-descriptive way. The results reveal that both philosophers consider it acceptable to contemplate religion and believe that the most significant part of philosophy is the absolute existence of God and discussing God. Although the eternal nature of the world had been proven to Aquinas and other philosophers by logical and philosophical reasoning, because of his being catholic and contravention of the divine inspiration in the issue of creation, he considers the world a chronological creation and rationalizes those reasons and declares that God has free will, so “He” is able to creak the world or delay its creation. Thus, the world has a chronological creation. On the other hand, Mohammad Hossein Tabatabaei with a two-dimensional approach believes that firstly, the world has a chronological origin due to the revival nature of origination, the same as what his master Mollasadra believed in, and secondly, it has a causal origination because it is the essential effect of its major cause “God”. Therefore, the two philosopher are unanimous in the idea but the rational basis of Tabatabaei notion overrides Aquinas`s religious notion and that the universe has a chronological origination.

Extended evolutionary synthesis is a theory that has been proposed to increase the explanatory power of evolutionary synthesis theory in the face of evolutionary complexities on the one hand and the ability to provide explanations for new discoveries in evolutionary biology on the other. This theory is presented in two parts, in the first part, the need to review and the need to extend within the conceptual frameworks governing this theory. The revision of conceptual frameworks includes the omission of the principle of central dogma and the modification of the formulation of gene-centered theory. In the second part, the necessity of extension in two dominant types of thinking in the foundations of evolutionary synthesis theory is discussed: the extension of evolution-oriented thinking to evolution-devolution-oriented thinking and acceptance of reciprocal causality instead of one-way causation. By examining the most important assumptions and claims of this new theory, some of its important metaphors, analogies and interpretations can be introduced to explain this theory. The extent to which this new theory can be accepted depends on what its founders defined as “Extensibility” and where they found it most necessary in the components of evolutionary synthesis theory.