Journal of Philosophical Investigations in Scopus
Year:2010 | Volume:52 | Issue:214|Papers Count:8

K. R. Popper, because of his standpoints on philosophy' and methodology of science and also his attitudes on political thought, has gained a-dignity in history of ideas of the twentieth century. Popper's significant contribution to philosophy of science is mainly concerned with the critique of "Induttionisll1" and defense of "Falsifiability"; and his significant contribution to political science is rooted inRjs defense of "Open Society". His emphasis is on "critical rationalism" in both methodology of science and political thought. Science and its method has been a great inspiration for his whole philosophy. But his perceptions on philosophy and methodology of science has beeri encountered some critics. If we accept that Popper's political philosophy has been created in his methodological frame work, then some of limitations of his methodology should be verified in order to reveal incompetences of his research program on "Open Society".This article claims that Popper's research program on his "Open Society" has been created in his methodological framework and suffers some defects and limitations. This article, with a critical view, illUstratessome limitations of research program and dogmatisms of Popper's "Open Society". It seems that Popper's research program on "Open Society" is vulnerable when it is judged by "fundamental pluralism" criterion- the epistemologicalfoundation of open society.

This article concerned with Levinas's defense of Subjectivity of Descartes.Levinas establishes the base of his philosophy on Cartesian "cogito" and he is influenced by Husserl. He, like Descartes, considers the content of Cogito and reaches to idea of Infinity (God) and then articulates it in terms of concepts such as "Other". He against Descartes believes that place of God is in ethics not in metaphysics. But he has not agreement on this issue with Descartes. We have been tried to show that Levinas is a Cartesian because he accepts the cogito and idea of infinity (God).

Kant in his philosophy has a critical approach to the philosophical doctrines of Leibniz. Kant's conception of pre-established harmony, iQtuition, and analytic - synthetic judgements is different from leibniz's notion. Critical philosophy gives a new meaninig to these terms and insists on the novelty of it's division between analytic - synthetic judgenents. In critique of pure reason, kant not only responses to Humean skepticism, but opposes to leibnizian dogmatisn. Thus, one can regard the philosophy of kant, whether it's doctrines be vigorous and compatible or not, as a new and genuine philosophy, which has guided western philosophy to a new direction.

The lack of the experimental evidence and doing of the similar examinations" are two reasons for some experimental scientists to state that the causality principle is not valid at the atomic limit. In this paper these two reasons are investigated and we show that if the causality or the rational rules are ignored for solving the problem which we faced with (i.e. according to rationality rules we believe that the causality principle is valid at the atomic limit, and on the other hand, we have not found any experimental evidence for this principle) then the process of inquiry would be stopped. But if we reject the other cases, we don't have this problem.

In Kant's point of view, we need a third thing as a mediating between predicate and subject in synthetic judgments. This issue about syntheticjudgment a priori is a puzzle, because this judgment is not empirical and we can not use empirical intuition as a mediate thing in it. So, the third thing in this case must be pure and a priori. It's pure intuition of time. Time in imaginatiqn has two functions; first, when it combine pure concepts and empirical intuitions and second, when it make synthetic judgment a priori possible. In this paper I want justify this matter.

Contingent conditionals, at the comparative logical works, has yielded different, and often inconsistent, analyses. At contemporaries' works, there are two approaches to the contingent conditionals: modal and truth-table methods. At the former, there has been used modal connectives of necessity and possibility to analyze the contingent conditionals; but at the latter, some truth-tables has been proposed. At the paper, besides presenting and criticizing the extant theories, wegain new analyses and formulations of the disputed subject matters.

Culture has been in the core of many scholars' attention until now and has led some of them to pay attention to criticize social issues. The term "industry of making culture" developed by some of Frankfurt Social Research Institute members to address capitalism criticism at that time. This institute started officially in 1923 and of its prominent members were Horkheimer, Adorno and Marcuse. They believed that ruling system by employing media, music, sport or horoscope which are some of most important elements of culture, tries to convert people to passive ones against policies, in such a way that there will not be any kind of commentarial K, views in society. On the other hand capnalism with help of culture industry tries to degrade artistic and cultural products in order to be produced just to make money in production and distribution circle. This industry with the help of wide and hard propaganda force people to buy those goods perhaps they don't need, resulting to pour revenues to investors.These scholars apart from culture keep critical views to "Capitalism", "instrumental Reason" and "Positive philosophy" and developed some hypothesis in this regard. In criticism, it is necessary for their theory to act revolutionarily, while, except Marcuse, no one of them not only participate in political movements but did not even support them.The other comment is that Frankfurt school was formed to review and renew Marxism principles and remove its errors which made it necessary to pay attention carefully to historical and economical documents in relation to structure of main social formation; but these scholars did not take serious measures in this regard.