THE EPISTEMOLOGICAL RESEARCH (AFAGHE HEKMAT)
Year:2013 | Volume:2 | Issue:6|Papers Count:8

The paper dealing with the place of Kant in the thoughts of Schopenhauer consists of one introduction and two main sections. Giving a short and introductory explanation about the place of Kant in the thoughts of Schopenhauer in section one under "criticism of the first critique", the critical assessment of Schopenhauer on Kant is demonstrated in form of three concepts of the object in itself, the meaning of experience, and the category of causality. The important point here is that Schopenhauer, unlike Kant, not only identifies the object in itself with the will, but also considers it as recognizable. In the second section under "criticism of the second critique, criticism of Schopenhauer on Kant's ethics and its key concepts such as the absolute, formalism of ethics, and also the important issue on freedom is explained. The point here is also that Schopenhauer, in contrast to Kant, does not consider man as a free agent, but maintains that man is always being influenced by his impulses. Finally, after treating Schopenhauer's criticism on Kant, it is pointed out that generally he, in spite of his sharp criticism on Kant, has always admired Kant and has got much inspiration from him as confessed by himself.

The nature of the soul and its incorporeality has been always one of the most challenging disputes among the philosophical and theological ideas. This is discussed in the present paper from the viewpoint of Fakhr-e Razi. In his multitude works, he speaks of the incorporeality of the soul in a different and sometimes contradictory way where he has taken a negative position in some of his works and an affirmative position in some others. However, he may be considered as holding the incorporeality of the soul. He certainly admits the otherness of the soul and the body.

The problem of "contingency and eternity of the universe" in Aristotle and Ibn-e Sina is the major question of the present paper which is dealing with the outlooks of these two peripatetic philosophers regarding the contingency and eternity of the universe. Relying on natural argument and appealing to the category of movement, Aristotle achieves to prove the unmoved mover which is called God by the commentators. According to him, the unmoved mover is the final cause of all movements in the universe. While in the view of Ibn-e Sine influenced by holy scriptures, God is deemed as absolute Being, necessary Being and the existence-Giver, God is the cause from the viewpoint of Aristotle, but its causality is merely provocative. As seen by Ibn-e Sina, such causality is efficient (existentiating) not provocative. By dividing the existent into the necessary and the possible, and also proving the essential need of the possibles for the necessary, he suggested a different type of contingency and eternity on which basis, the universe with a property of essential contingency, receives the effusion of being from the eternal creator. The God of Aristotle is not the creator of the world, and naturally his uncreated world would be eternal.

The attitude of Muslim logicians toward the analysis of relation, its rules and application has not been in the same level. They have systematically discussed on relation between the two conceptions (conceptually and extensionally), but in treating the rules and the inferential properties regarding the relation, they have talked separately in a way that paid no attention to the distinction of different properties of relation. Thus, in explaining and analyzing Aristotelian logic, they have come to a fundamental inconsistency, and the rules concerning relation is not practically a part of Aristotelian logic. Correspondingly, the direct capture of their ideas in this regard is not possible. Meanwhile, the later Muslim logicians paid attention to the extensions and universal individuals for founding the logic of sets. Such correspondence between the theory of relations and the theory of sets is clear from the definition of relations by them. Treating the four relations by traditional logicians, and development of such theory with new terminology by the later logicians could defy the wrong comment that they had no encounter with the logic of relations; that is, although the traditional logic is based on single-positional predicates and intends to render all relations to concepts, in issues like the four relations as an entry to the logic of sets, they somehow come across with the problem of relations. However, we have no doubt that there is no systematic discussion under the logic of relations by Aristotle and his following logicians.

This paper states the ethical theory of Mohammad Ibne Zakarya Razi which is summarized with regard to the principles and components of ethical theory proposed by this scholar. Razi in his speculations, especially regarding the ethical issues, has followed Socrates and Plato, but he also enjoyed an ethical system himself. Such theory which is summarized as healthy-centered and individualistic ethic resulted in certain characteristics and orientation as well. Just as an Epicurean, Razi sees the most appropriate ethical state in a moderate life in which the natural needs are satisfied without deviating from moderation. He considers ethical aspects as concentrated on origin of intellect, and by means of intellect, he advises caring the repentance and suppressing the passions, and in practice also, he deals with ethic with care and intends to actualize ethical development through prevention, remedy and improvement.

We know that the relation between the peripatetic philosophy and illuminist philosophy is one of the most important issues of Islamic philosophy. Therefore, in this writing we first treat the two definition of philosophy and then discuss about the works containing oriental philosophy among the books of Ibn-e Sina, and also the allegorical epistles of Sohrawardi. Then, we talk about eleven common issues of these types of writings the most important of which may include allegorical language, enquiring about the soul and its faculties, applying the allegory of bird in most of these epistles and ... . Finally we conclude that Ibn-e Sina, one and half century before Sohrawardi and like him, enjoyed mystical experience or oriental philosophy. And also one of his allegorical epistles is considered as a beginning for writing such works by Sohrawardi. Therefore, we cannot consider Ibn-e Sina as being merely peripatetic and unaware of mystical truths.