Journal of Philosophical Investigations in Scopus
Year:2008 | Volume:51 | Issue:203|Papers Count:7

Principles of Charity have become central features of any plausible theory of interpretation. The trick has been to explain how the truth of the text to appear without abandoning one's critical resources in the process. I argue that Gadamer's discussion of "the logic of question and answer," when applied to textual interpretation, functions as a principle of charity provides the right balance between being too liberal and being too critical.

This article has attempted to clarify two of the models that depict the system in which the Universe came into existence. Within the domain of Islamic thought, Avicennian and Ishraqi (Sohrevardi's illumination) models are more popular than others and deserve adequate attention. Although the very relationship between God and the Universe, after the question of "God', is the next most crucial question to philosophers, specifically to divine philosophers, especially where it concerns the occurrence rather than mere manipulation of such relationship, the authors of this article have attempted to show that the failure of philosophers in handling this question has been even more intense than their failure in dealing with any other questions. In order to verify this hypothesis, the authors have focused on the thoughts of the two great Muslim philosophers, Avicenna and Sheikh Isbraq, who endeavored to present a consistent model of Creation. Finally, a content analysis was conducted. Then, within the limits of an article such as this, some criticisms that might render the views of these two great philosophers vulnerable (to attack) were offered and judgment was left to readers.

In both Christian and Islamic world, some writers have accused averroes (Ibn rushd) and his followers (averroists) of believing to and defending of double truth: that phiiosophica.1facts and religious facts despite their inconsistency can both be true. But this charge is true or is a mere accusation? This article examines this matter. We should distinguish between for meaning of double truth: a) the idea that some people can believe in a proposition and others are justified in believing to its contrary. B) The idea that a person can in a given time believes to a proposition and in another time approves its contrary. C) The idea that a person epistemologically is justified to believe in a proposition and at the same time accept its contrary. D) The idea that, ontologically, in the field of reality the truth is twin, I. E 'both A and its contrary are in reality correct. We will prove that none of the averroists agree with D, and a few of them confirm c, and almost all of them approve A and B.

Philosophers and commentators of Plato's works introduce the Ideas (Forms) as Universals that our knowledge of them is delivered in general definitions. Aristotle is at the beginning of them. He apparently introduces and criticizes the Ideas under the name of Universals.The present essay means at an enquiry and representation of Plato's Symposium. After all, it is going to see the text (210ad) that is not seen fairly.Through discussion we will see that Plato in the hierarchy of his aesthetics distinguishes between two knowledge’s: the cognition of the universal concept of beauty and the knowledge of the Beauty itself. According to Plato, every kind of knowledge has a proper object. Thus, the conclusion is a new reading of an old tradition: Plato discerns the universal concept of beauty from the Beauty itself. So the Idea of Beauty is not the universal.

Having historical view of science, in general, and of philosophy, in particular, is essential for both science and philosophy. By historical view of science and philosophy not only their emergence and their evolutionary processes (trends) can be further cleared, but it can be seen that it is impossible to separate, for instance, philosophy from its history. This historical view is what among Muslim philosophers, quite unlike philosophers in western world, has been a bit overlooked. One of the reasons for this is related to the Muslim philosophers' approaches to philosophy.In this article I have tried using a "documentary and analysis" methodology to show to what extent the two Muslim philosophers, i.e. Sadrulmotallehin and allamah Tabatabai, have interested in historical view of philosophy. Definitely, believing in prophetic wisdom has played Sadrulmotaalehin, in spite of being attracted to predecessor's opinion and deeply exploring their thoughts, has at times gone astray in presenting and attributing the viewpoints to the different igures and schools of philosophy. But, it can be said that Allamah Tabatabi's neglect of this is more considerable.

Discovering the physics explanation versa Logicos one and Exposing the physics explanation, on the basis of searching suitable answers to four kinds of the "why" question about every natural and industrial thing, enabled Aristotle to found scientific explanation and to manifest its essential characters. This paper is an effort to reconstruct the way by which this ability could be reached. The final paragraphs of the paper will show that all modern views on scientific explanation (which is divided in two universal approaches of "deductive-nomological" and "inductive-statistical") are somehow taken from Aristotle's doctrine.

Classical schools of ethics in general and that of Plato in particular are characterized by Eudemonism. The basic doctrine of Eudeminism is that man's ultimate goal is to attain happiness; and all man's activities make sense in the light of this lofty goal. It is usually said that moral virtue paves the way to attain happiness; but relation between the two should be studied closely and in more details.In the present article, to depict relation between virtue and happiness as viewed by Plato, two hypotheses have been presented. According to hypothesis of identity, virtue is considered as identical with happiness; while according to the hypothesis of sufficiency, virtue and happiness are two different things; and acquisition of one of them (virtue) is a preliminary step towards acquisition of the other (happiness). In Plato's works, one may find evidence for both of the above hypotheses; but none of them is able by, itself, to explain his view concerning this matter. To understand Plato's position in this regard, one has to make a synthesis of the two hypotheses.