RESEARCH ON METAPHYSIK
Year:2019 | Volume:11 | Issue:1 (27) |Papers Count:12

Maurice Blanchot proposes fragmentary writing as a way of thinking/writing that essentially indicates incompletion as well as a rupture from totality. He believes that fragmentation emerges in the form of an imperative that not only affirms finitude but also reflects the infinite openness of thought and writing, apart from systematic or dialectical thought. Understanding the importance of fragmentary writing as an exigency which emerges after the completion of the systematic thought’ s energies, may depend on a special reading of history that rests on return and recurrence rather than development or accomplishment. By introducing the doctrine of the Eternal Recurrence along with the Overman, Nietzsche, also committing to the fragmentary space, images a world in which man faces with finitude and to affirm it is the only way to pass by nihilism. By analyzing the role and characteristics of fragment in Blanchot’ s thought, this study tries to read it along with the doctrine of the eternal recurrence, in order to discuss the exigency of fragmentary writing facing with the thought of the Whole and the need to affirm finitude.

On the basis of the the authenticity of the existence, Mulla-Sadra believes that everything, whether subjective or objective, is real to the extent it exists. But non-existence is nothing and pure untruth. The question that is raised here is whether non-existence has any role in understanding and realization of existence. If yes, then what are those roles? Although existence is the subject matter of philosophy, and it is only existence that has real denotation, our focus on this subject has led us to neglecting of non-existence and its functions. Analyzing the role of non-existence in the emergence and understanding of plurality, and all depend on an understanding of non-existence, its meaning and realizations. Mulla-Sadra considers no authenticity for non-existence and defines it as the lack of existence, but he implicitly considers a role for it in understanding of existence. Addressing the definition of non-existence, its types and its applications in various areas, this paper studies the importance of non-existence in Sadra's philosophy. Accordingly, it is argued that as there is variations in existence, there seems to be degrees of intensity or weakness for non-existence in Sadra’ s philosophy. In a sense, in one realization of existence, there is no non-existence while in a weak version of existence, non-existence is pervasive. Without an understanding of nonexistence, it is not possible to understand other philosophical concepts including paradox principle, authenticity of existence, variations in existence, substantive motion, and selfevolution.

One of the most essential and controversial terms in Art Theory is Mimesis. According to their philosophical views, Plato and Aristotle-who are among the first art theoreticians-each had his own interpretation of Mimesis; And this difference of views is one of the most important elements in evaluating of artworks in the aesthetic history. In this paper we tried to give an almost comprehensive understanding of the concept of Mimesis with contemplation in origins of this word and in its cognates in Greek language (mimos, mimema, mimeistai). Along that, we studied Greek texts that these words were used in them and thereby we tried to determine why these two philosophers-Plato and Aristotle – had adopted two different attitudes towards the concept of Mimesis. The outcomes of our analyses showed that mimrooted terms in pre-platonic texts signified on transference of meaning through "enactment". Their origin was ritual and their primary object was human or animal behaviors. Moreover, primary medium of this concept was dance and then it has been generalized to other types of art. What was common in all these words was the idea of correspondence or equality; In other words, these works or acts had chosen a hypothetical equivalent in real world as a role model. Yet this correspondence was not a pure copy but rather in some cases, this hypothetical pattern even had no concrete existence.

The main purpose of this research is to disregard the most important reason for moral skepticism, regress argument that is obtained with the help of basic ethical beliefs through moral intuition. According to intuitionist Ethical fundamentalism, the chain of justification of moral beliefs leads to those basic beliefs which ultimately leads to one of the hypotheses of the regress argument to be answered. In this approach, rational and ethical intuition can be considered as the source of justification for these basic beliefs. not in the sense that these intuitions are one of the foundations of the inference. In this sense, the " subject predicate relation" is perceived and implicit in moral propositions evidently through moral intuitions and the basic beliefs derived from these intuitions are considered as intuitive ethical beliefs. In this paper, first, the basic ethical beliefs are explained, and then the origin and justification of such beliefs are explained.

The Traditionalists’ theory of knowledge is philosophically grounded in Plato's epistemology and ontology. Based on this, and in harmony with the intelligible and the tangible realms, human intelligence acquires knowledge at two levels or two degrees. The intellect is at the highest cognitive level and is capable of perceiving universal truths. At a lower level, there is reason that is itself a partial aspect of the intellect. According to these two forms of intelligence, there are two types of knowledge: one, the metaphysical knowledge, and the other, the reasoning. The intellect comprehends metaphysical truths intuitively, immediately and at once, but the perception of reason is partial, gradual and intermediate, and through the process of reasoning. Recognition arising from the intellect, is true and complete, but the recognition resulting from reason is limited and incomplete. Reason deals with concepts, but in the intellect, the subject and object of knowledge are united. The sensory knowledge and the rational cognition, can cause to awaken the intellect and recall universal ideas, if the subject has certain qualifications.

The epistemological discussions are directed to identify human’ s mental abilities in modern time. Kant’ s description and explanation on the cognitive and ethical judgments is completed with the description of the cognitive faculties including sense, imagination, understanding and reason. But the mental abilities of human beings aren’ t limited to understanding and reason. Kant talks about genius and taste in the third critique. In the paper, Kant’ s works and their interpretations are being analyzed in order to achieve an acceptable result about relationship between taste and genius With an emphasis on aesthetic experience in the formalistic approach. In this approach, the subject and object are involved in the production and perception of the artworks. Taste is essential in The perception and judgment of the artworks, that is, it strengthens objectivity, and genius is essential in their production, that is, it strengthens subjectivity. In the other words, taste is for the selection and genius is for the change of a thing. This reminds the fundamental assumption that sensory experiences without conceptions are blind and conceptions without sensory experience are empty. Accordingly, they are co-present in the evolutionary process in social and cultural contexts. The method of the research is analysis of the data derived from textual study of Kant’ s works and his commentators.

Moral dilemmas are situations in which agents are provided by two conflicting moral judgments but it's not possible for them to act upon both judgments at the same time. Proponents of moral dilemmas say that agents in conflicting situations, have to act in a way that it is morally wrong. Agents will experience negative feelings such as guilt, regret and remorse, no matter which alternative is chosen by them. Opponents, on the other hand, argue for the contrary and say that these situations do not escape from incoherence in a moral theory. They claim that although a good moral theory should be action guiding in any situation, it shouldn’ t provide the agent with two conflicting moral judgments. Moral dilemmas violate the principle of being action guiding in a moral theory. Proponents often argue in the virtue ethics framework and believe that the virtue ethic theory is coherent and action guiding and it provides an appropriate explanation for moral dilemmas.

In the paragraphs 5. 6 – 5. 641 of his Tractatus, Wittgenstein refers to some important points regarding mind and solipsism of which three interpretations have been presented: The first one is the Orthodox interpretation according to which meanings are given to words by metaphysical ego or subject through picturing and via a psychological process. This metaphysical ego, however, is distinct from the empirical ego and there is nothing in the world which corresponds to it and of course it is presupposition of the existence of world. It is impossible to have meaningful talk about it and it can only be shown. The second interpretation is the therapeutic interpretation which unlike the realistic and metaphysical approach of the orthodox interpretation, it has an unrealistic and anti-metaphysical flavor. It establishes a link between the ideas of the former and the latter Wittgenstein. The third interpretation is the ethical interpretation, according which the propositions of Tractatus have practical values. In this interpretation the solipsism of Tractatus is regarded as a mystical and ethical act rather than a metaphysical and epistemological theorem and the target of it is to make change in the spiritual life of human beings. In this article the three interpretations have been analyzed and evaluated.

Paradigm is a key concept of Kuhn's philosophy of science defined in a holistic way. Kuhn's appeal to this concept is in fact a dissolution, not a solution, of empiricists analytical puzzles. Kuhn by posing historical and sociological questions made a revolution in the of philosophy of science. This new picture is emerging and as the time goes by we see its consequences. Kuhn in defining Paradigm is closely and clearly influenced by Gestalt psychology and though this concept has not the same application in the Kuhn's writings, he always uses it to depicts the holistic features of scientific knowledge. This article considers diverse usages of this concept and discerns holism as their common element. Having explored the holistic approach, I first review Kuhn's attempts to clarify the vagueness of this concept and then I assess his success.

Rorty's approach to metaphysics is pragmatistic, and thus encountering with it based on the utilitarianism and efficiency of the thoughts. Like many postmodern philosophers, he also denies the concept of truth. He uses pragmatic thoughts and modernist ideas. The rejection of the mind as a reflection of nature, anti-representativeness, anti-essence, and emphasis on language are premises on which Rorty denies the truth. From Rorty's point of view, human being in every situation redefines or recreates himself and this is a development, which is being continuously considered at both individual and social levels. Rorty divides the education period into two intervals: pre-university and university. In the pre-university interval, there are elements of convergence leading man to the community. At the university and post-university intervals, there are heterogeneous elements, which encourage man to individuality and self-creation. The main question is whether Rorty has been able to achieve a well-defined and efficient frame for the contemporary societies by presenting neopragmatism in the field of education. In this article at first, we will explain Rorty’ s approach to education, then examine critiques of his approach to education, and in the last step, we will explain the possibility of using Rorty’ s views in relation to the conditions of today’ s societies.

“ There is a prime number greater than a hundred” implies “ there are numbers” . It seems that Carnap accepts the former and rejects the latter. How is it possible? And if his view on ontology allows for such a result, should we think of his view as paradoxical? The author does not agree on the light of dividing ontologists into three categories. Indeed, there are two genuine question in ontology: “ what is there? ” And, “ what is the criterion of existence? ” Ontologists in the first category think that the answer of the first question presupposes the answer of the second question. I call them ‘ methodologists’ . Ontologists in the second category, ‘ particularists’ , think that the answer of the second question presupposes the answer of the first. Ontologists in the third category radically reject the possibility of answering those questions altogether. I call this category ‘ ontological second level skepticism’ and attribute it to Carnap. Finally, I demonstrate how by this attribution Carnap’ s view is not paradoxical. On the other hand, by putting Carnap in the ‘ Refer-Without-Tears’ camp, in opposite of ‘ inconvenience refer’ camp, I show how he refers without ontological concerns.

The distinction between context of discovery and context of justification is one of the major dichotomies in philosophy of science. Debates on its significance and implications are still alive. Reichenbach and Popper each have a different take on this issue. Reichenbach, by proposing the distinction, could respond to criticism of induction. Popper also discussed the distinction between discovery/justification in order to solve the problem of background of knowledge. From the perspective of both philosophers, the context of discovery cannot be analyzed, and methodology is merely determined by context of justification, but each of them has special components for this methodology, especially in the conceptualization of rational reconstruction. The application of the distinction discovery/justification by Reichenbach and Popper in the philosophy of science can be criticized in several ways. first the conversion of the distinction discovery/justification from harmless distinction into an absolute metaphysical dichotomy, which is made by making a normative framework in the process of scientific research, taking away mobility and dynamism from the researcher. Second, this separation is originated from a simplistic look at the flow of science production, so these two positions should have considered intertwined. Third, the role played by presuppositions in rejecting/accepting hypotheses as an arbitration that reflects the impact of historical, psychological and sociological components on the process of the formation of science. Fourth, the interaction of the internal and external structure of science is crucial in order to, properly understand the main aspects of scientific developments.