Wisdom and Philosophy
Year:2017 | Volume:13 | Issue:3 |Papers Count:6

In this study, it will be tried to describe Parfit’s interpretation of Kantian impartiality by referring to Parfit’s work as well as to criticize the mistakes of Parfit’s vision. Then, the author's solution as the alternative view in this debate will be predented. To sum up, author believes that the Parfit’s vision hasn' t fully success in structure, content and consequent. It means that he couldn’t match his work (in interpretation of Kant) with the other part of Kantian thought, he couldn’t present an acceptable content about impartiality in Kant’s philosophy and he couldn’t produce moral- useful results from his analyses. To reform Parfit’s mistakes, the author will refer to Kantian third critique, which is known as the power of judgment. According to this part of his philosophy, we cultivate our self and we learn an impartial view that is educated to live by beauty and ethics. This term can constitute a moral agency and can prepare a common criterion of moral knowledge.

Human is an end in itself; this is Kant’s second formulation of categorical imperative, which has proved to be the most practical one for him. What is meant by "end in itself" as opposed to being "merely as a means"? How can we apply this formula in practice. What is the relationship between this formula, which appears to be teleological, and consequentialism and utilitarianism in ethics? These three basic questions form the focus of the present paper. However, our emphasis is on the third one. First, we will briefly explicate the second formula. Then, we will discuss the application of this formula as well as the negative and positive judgments drawn from it. Finally, we will refer to an interpretation by David Cummiskey who argues that a normative consequential moral system can be deduced from this formula. This interpretation will be meticulously examined.

According to the place of light in the philosophy of illumination, this question arises that: Why Suhrawardi has used light instead of the divine being on one hand, and the longitude and latitude as homeland on the other hand? This article tries to prove the illuminate cosmopolitanism from Suhrawardi’s viewpoint. Suhrawardi’s cosmopolitan is investigated via the ontology of light and as a result, the meaning of homeland is explored from philosophy of illumination perspective. Since he has chosen light instead of being in ontological issues on one hand, and used the words associated with homeland including west and east on the other hand; his ontology is related to homeland and as a consequence, to cosmopolitanism. Accordingly, in his opinion, not only homeland is identical to existence but also it as the existence and the realm of homeland is expanded to all over the existence. In Suhrawardi’s cosmopolitan, since the humans belong to an ultimate reality, there is no difference among them and they are dignified in the same level. Hence, accidental differences including color, language, homeland and etc. do not offer specific right to a specific group and no group is superior to other.

This article is an attempt to address a main question: is there any connection between Wittgenstein’s way and Descartes’ one in overcoming the problem of dualism? The discussion of the position of Wittgenstein on Descartes’ dualism here begins with the private language argument. For understanding Descartes’ position on the issue, one of his correspondences with Princess Elisabeth, and also the concept of the nature in his book the Meditation are examined so as to be shown this connection, regardless of many central differences between them. Moreover, it is shown here that the relatively similar ways of these two philosophers for facing the problem of dualism are in fact the ways for dissolving the matter, rather than solving it. It means that there seems to be no way to solve the problem of Descartes’s dualism on the basis of his own works, and this problem can only be overcome by getting out of his philosophy- the thing that both Wittgenstein and Descartes actually did. This article, therefore, takes this reading as its main idea that the Wittgenstein’s attack on Descartes’s dualism in particular, and on Descartes’s philosophy in general, is a fundamental criticism that comes from his critical point of view about the nature of philosophy itself; and the Descartes’s way which was mentioned above can be justified only in such a this context.

The illustration of the fundamental, pre-scientific, presuppositions of natural scientific approaches to psychology, psychiatry and the related areas of research has been one of the most significant achievements of Heidegger's collaboration with the Swiss psychiatrist, Medard Boss. The central issue in this regard is the limitations of research based on the natural scientific orientation in understanding human experience. In this paper, different aspects of the Daseinsanalytic critique of this orientation would be discussed with reference to the four basic problems: the problem of natural scientific calculation, the problem of reality, the problem of human perception, and the problem of the conflation between the motive and the cause of human behavior. While thoughtlessness about these problems may result in scientific absolutism, questioning can free researchers from theoretical dogmas and the problematic ideas especially the idea of the full separation of psychology, as an exact science, similar to the natural modern science, from philosophy.

Regarding the philosophical view of Shirazi, a persistent question is whether the efforts of Shiite thinkers in the use of different schools of thought, the knowledge coherent for him to be brought or the adaptations frequent votes of inconsistent from view, the combination of ideas led Is? Of course, the surest way to reach the answer to evaluate each of the issues raised in transcendental philosophy, especially the issues that they claim Sadra innovation. In this context, the present article aims to examine what different Sadra on the "primary matter" is the owner of Asfar, while acknowledging the composition of the concrete body of matter and form, stating extensively to defend the idea of Peripatetic philosophers of external realization monster as it lacks only the ability to act and turns around and look for the critics, especially Hakim Suhrawardi's philosophical position is, but he described some of the primary matter, like a special statement on the implications of Suhrawardi. The lawsuit innovation Mulla Sadra on the composition of the union of matter and form and promises to delight in Monster, respectively, to the works of philosophers Ikhwan al-Safa and the essay "Ashaq" Bu-Ali denied the innovation Sadra these problems limited to some explanation and He is considered new arguments.