PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION RESEARCH (NAMAH-I HIKMAT)
Year:2005 | Volume:3 | Issue:5|Papers Count:9

The notion of "possible worlds" apparently raised by Leibnitz for the first time, is recently put into account for the role it plays in the semantics of modal logic. The most significant theories on possible worlds are categorized into two general types,i.e.actualism and possiblilism about each of which there are various versions. In this survey, the versions of D.Lewis and kripke on possiblilismm and those of R.Stalnaker, R.Chisolm, R.Adams, and A.Plantinga on actualism are examined and criticized.

Philosophizing is different from knowing philosophy. One whose profession is teaching philosophy does not need to be a philosopher. Of course, having sufficient philosophical information is a necessary condition for teaching philosophy. However, having philosophical information for a philosopher, whose profession is philosophizing, is merely a preparatory element.A philosopher is one in whose mind philosophical questions naturally arise when one perceptively faces different realms of reality such as objective, subjective, and linguistic ones. In other words, his mind would breed questions and seek to find responses to them. The process of occurrence of philosophical questions in philosophers, minds and their endeavour to find responses to them is called philosophizing.The issues and questions that philosophers delve into have a wide realm. The domain of philosophers, philosophizing is of the greatest extent in comparision with other scholars. This originates from the fact that philosophers, in addition to their attempts to know the facts, a common initiative of every scholar, seek to know the knowledge itself. Thus we would have philosophy of philosophy as we do philosophy of physics, philosophy of biology, and philosophy of logic.The present article deals with the domain of philosophizing within the field of philosophy, explaining the criteria of multiplicity in philosophy, and reporting philosophical realms which emerge consequent to the application of the above – mentioned criteria. Furthermore, it deals with the quality of philosophizing in these realms. This article may be considered supplementary to the article entitled "comparative philosophy: its concept and domain" published in "Name-Ye Hekmat" no. 1.

In his second phase of philosophical life, Wittgenstein held that different language games emanate from different forms of life, and every form of life has its own language. He came to this conclusion by considering the use of words toward knowing their meanings, and emphasizing the diversity of language usage and the multiplicity of language games. Religious discourse is an independent language game with a unique language engraved on a form of life, and has its own principles and logic. Therefore, religious concepts and propositions gain meaning in the language game of religion, and religious language is understandable just for those who share one and the same form of religious life. According to Wittgenstein, using language in expressing religious beliefs is not similar to using it in showing facts at all. Religious belief is using an image. It is a firm and unshakable obligation which regulates the whole life of an individual and is not based on arguments or evidence. Thus it is neither supported nor harmed by science and philosophy. Elucidating the nature of language in the philosophical thought of Wittgenstein, explaining the concept of "forms of life" and "language games", and showing the role of philosophy in this regard, the present article emphasizes the meaning of religious belief and its incomparability with other beliefs, thus emphasizing the uniqueness of religious language, and the independence of religious discourse through the language game of religion. It also introduces some philosophical foundations of Wittgensteinian fideism.

Among various issues and courses of philosophy, ontology his its own phace, since some philosophers deny such an issue outright while others consider it the most significant or rather the only question of philosophy.Referring to the background of discussions on existence in ancient Greece, the author deals with Aristotle,s view on the classification of various branches of science and certain arguments against it. For instance, according to this classification, the two branches of general notions (Umur Ammah) and metaphysics are considered as a single branch of knowledge. If so, they require a single subject. Seeking this single subject, in consideration to the diversity of Aristotle,s remarks in this regard, has largely divided philosophers. The present article refers particularly to philosophers, views before Ibn Sina, the latter,s solution and the views of the philosophers influenced by him.They held that general notions and metaphysics in its particular sense colleciively form prote philosophia or metaphysics in its general sense, and disussing God,s existence is one of the issues of prote philosophia, not its subject.Examining certain arguments against Ibn Sina,s view, the author gives a detailed account of Allamah Tabatabai,s comments on the subject of Prote Philosophia and an analysis of its various dimensions. Summing up the materials, he refers to certain points including the necessity of the separation of the principle of metaphysics from the works on metaphysics, necessary considerations on the definition of metaphysics, and explanation of its subjects as well as its issues.

Kant is considered one of the most influential philosophers of the west on philosophical thought, science, and religion in the modern age. His significance may be justified by the point that the history of modern philosophy can be divided into the pre-Kant and post-Kant periods.It was through Kant,s philosophy that the modern attitude of man toward being, having begun with Descartes, reached its ideal. So after Kant, philosophy and metaphysics took on a new approach through which science and religion gained a new meaning and identity.From one perspective, the subjects of the philosophical thought of Kant are man, God, and universe, and from another perspective they are science, metaphysics, ethics, religion, and art. Anyhow, kant counts man, and his abilies as the main axis of his philosophical research in his principal works such as "Critique of Pure Reason", and "Critique of Practical Reason". This man enjoys cognitive, ethical, religious, artistic, and other abilities.The present article concentrates more on knowledge, ethics, and religion. Kant considers man as the axis of being since he recognizes the classification of universe, perception of reality, ethics, science, and religion just in the light of abilities, will, and duty of man. This is the very human – oriented science and religion or humanization of science and religion. Meanwhile the actual world of this man is the phenomena universe, i.e. the reality of religion and science is recognized in this very experimental universe, and merely based on the limited capacity and will of human being. Consequently, there is no reality beyond the material world and man,s wishes and abilities.

The issue of human innate nature is raised in Quranic verses and so taken into account in commentaries on the Quran. However, it has never been formulated as a coherent theory on anthropology or epistemology by Muslim earlier scholars. In our age, some theologians did their best to turn this theory into a reasonable one and apply it in the fields of religious anthropology, ehics, origin of piety, and justification of worshipping God. According to some principles of transcendant theosophy, human innate nature is a potential fact which reaches actuality under certain circumstances as a result of becoming and transsubstantial movement. On the other hand, negators of human innate nature deny it outright due to some arguments among which is the argument that some people do not have any concept from or leaning to God. Apparently, some challenges such as the inductive nature of certain premises of the argument have prevented the theory of human nature from being accepted as an absolutely philosophical approach. Nevertheless, it can be a significant and justifiable theory based on an interdisciplinary approach and methodological pluralism in the light of the psychologists’ findings and religious teachings.

The present article takes a cursive look on the issue of the influence of Iranian culture and Zoroastrian tradition on Jewish culture and tradition emphasizing the issue of salvation and saviourism. At the first stages of comparative study of religions, two opposite extreme attitudes were established, one overemphasizing the foregoing influence and the other denying any influence outright.However, these two attitudes – in spite of having some adherents – were gradually moderated. So the issue of the influence of Iranian religion on Jewish tradition is unquestionable. Saviourism is particularly one of the common points between Zoroastrianism and Abrahamic religions, thus the probability of one being influenced by others.

Referring to causation and raising the question whether a single meaning is intended by the term "cause" in its various usages, Parkinson deals in the present article with the context, background, and the way of raising "Four Causes" of Aristotle. He also refers to the development occurred in understanding this issue due to the translation of Greek texts into Latin.Further, he surveys various usages of the term "cause" as Hume states, and examines the latter three criteria for the recognition of the relation of cause and effect. Thus he refers to two significant differences between Hume and J.S. Mill,s explanations.Finally, he surveys Collingwood,s view on three different meanings of "cause" in detail, and compares the historical cause of Collingwood with the final cause of Aristotle, thus mentioning teleological explanation and distinguishing the two types of internal and external teleology. At the end, he examines the views of Russel, Davidson, Taylor, Bennett, and Woodfield, and comes to the conclusion that presentation of  teleological explanations requires not only recognizing the effect of a cause, but establishing the goodness of the effect from a particular perspective. Therefore, the type of explanation involves both causal and value indices.