QARBSHENASI-YE BONYADI (OCCIDENTAL STUDIES)
Year:2016 | Volume:7 | Issue:1|Papers Count:6

In this paper I try to refute Guyer’s reading of Kant’s refutation of idealism in a way in which I defend Kant’s idealism which has been denied by Guyer. By the notion of idealism according to Kant’s philosophy I mean we are not allowed to use space referring to thing in itself, as opposed to Guyer’s claim. In other words according to Kant objects of experience are objectively constructed by subject based upon lawful connection between them, as he expresses in the first analogy of experience, overlooking what they are really in themselves as mind-independent reality. I shall show Kant’s refutation of idealism does not involve any knowledge of thing in itself as opposed to Guyer’s reading; rather, Kant uses outer thing as an object of experience, that is, outer things are experience-sensations under application of categories. Some scholars such as Allison (2004) have defended Kant’s idealism. Dina Emundts (2010) shows, as opposed to Guyer’s claim, Kant has located refutation of idealism in the right place, namely after analogies of experience in edition B. She also shows refutation of idealism can attain its goal and it does not thus fail; that is, it can rebut problematic idealism. I endeavor to concentrate on the issue which indicates Kant uses outer thing in refutation of idealism in edition B as object of experience not as thing in itself. Meanwhile, I rebut Guyer’s argument and adduce my own reasons point-by-point in order to defend Kant’s idealism.

Creation of the trilogy as a play format and the issue of creating tragedy in the framework of the first its performance are interconnected with each other and as attributed to Aeschylus, logically can be spoken about synchronisation of them. On the other hand tragedy as a historical event or real and objective experience that narrated by Plato in the form of dialogue, reproduces trilogy's innovative element that is tragedy. In the interpretation of Apology on the base of intellectual context, trilogy provides a special relationship with it. The present text within the framework of Socrates Impressionability of tragedy reviews the relationship between the trilogy of Aeschylus and Socrates tragedy and is of the opinion that the tragedy in shaping and directing the Apology has a unique role. This text tries to reveal such a relationship. Comparison of Apology and the plays of Aeschylus based on hermeneutics leads to unfold the meaning of the above that is the hypothesis of this text. This is the same sense that explains the main part of the civil and political views of Socrates.

In his seminal work, Of Grammatology, Jacques Derrida puts forward the notion of arche-violence. In Derrida’s view, the physical acts of violence all originate in a general, abstract violence which Derrida calls it the “first violence.” He claims that violence, in all its forms and manifestations, begins with language. This originary violence is an indispensable part of language functions by bringing difference into play, which in turn constructs oppositional poles. These differences and oppositions by influencing all interpretive systems establish violence in society as we understand it. The aim of this paper is to draw on Derrida’s arche-violence and the feminist discourses being inspired by his theories in order to explore the root causes of violence and oppression against women. Accordingly, the main concern of the present study is that violence against women has its root in language and the culture originating from that, and investigating individual cases of violence from a psychological perspective actually hinder finding the proper solution to this individual and social issue.

It is well known that Solon put the cornerstone of the Athenian Democracy. When did he do it that like many other cities in Greece, Athens was subject to the crisis and on the brink of civil war. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the role of Solon for saving Athens from the crisis and leading it to such a political system that after him named the Athenian Democracy. To investigate it, first it is necessary to have a review of situation of Solon’s era and then, an attention to his viewpoint so that how Athens could be saved from that crisis. A survey of his viewpoint shows his utilization of mythical heritage, although, he used this heritage in order of his era’s need for enacting legislation that he named the just law or the good law. He enacted this law for preservation of the limits of citizens as well as giving them a political role so that, unlike the former traditional system, they would enjoy of a political role and responsibility. The effect of this was the first cornerstone for Athens to arrive to its Democracy.

Many expressed definition on «orientalism», including the western concept is the ambiguity of the term with negative connotations, especially in relation to the colonization of Europe, is verifiable. Edward Said's efforts for demystification of it, something of this complexity did not reduce, but anti-Western discourse, became the focus of the review. Emphasizing the contrast between the East (Asia) and the West (West), the distance between the subject and the fact that it creates in the mind of the researcher, the distance that making false image of the subject. Change this term in this subject, it is a sign of Western approach and unfortunately these changes by critics, especially Muslims, are ignored. Ignoring the role of time in the definition, especially in the field of Islamic studies in the West, the conflict affected and frozen concept to cash drag has more depth differences. This paper attempts to investigate ways of making the term «orientalism» in European culture, or territory of its applications, our understanding of the East, the East evolution of Western thought and cooperation of Muslims, Islamic studies, to modern challenges and paradigm shift east of the deal. At the end of the East empathetic, by enumerating the factors that have brought.

Johann Gottlieb Fichte, one of the Kant's followers and founders of German idealism, claimed that is the only philosopher that found the spirit of Kant's philosophy. Despite this claim, he is opposed to Kant in some of the most important issues. One of them is the problem of intellectual intuition. Kant explicitly disputes the intellectual intuition, whereas Fichte bases the consciousness on it and even he proves that without the intellectual intuition the knowledge is impossible in human kind.He asserts that intellectual intuition in his opinion is something different from Kant's and it' sname is the only common factor between them. He also says that Kant agrees with him and even this point is the spirit of the first critiques.This assay is to study this issue and clarify the subject matter, then it turns out that in the point of intellectual intuition, spite common denominator between them, Fiche disagrees Kant. There is a difference of opinion in respect of "transcendental I". In this case what Kant explicitly denied is the same as Fichte proves.