Journal of Existence and Knowledge
Year:2014 | Volume:1 | Issue:2 |Papers Count:8

Muslim philosophers have offered different interpretations and possibilities on kinesis in category (substance and accident). Two interpretations are most important among others. According to one interpretation, which in this article is referred to as Avicenan approach, kinesis is a mode of corporeality and should not be understood as a fluidity of substance or accident. On this view, kinesis in substance, which implies nothing less than the fluidity of substance, would be impossible. Upon another interpretation, which is referred to as Sadrayian approach in this article, kinesis denotes a kind of being, both in substance and accident, and divides the being into fixed and fluid. According to the first approach, Avicenan approach, this kind of kinesis, from one point of view, falls short of the criterion of identity, so it is self-contradictory, and from another perspective, it compromises between "identity" and "otherness" in a contradictory manner. The second interpretation, investigating the existential reality of kinesis, makes it clear that kinesis in substance and accident can be considered as fluid and unresting, implying a mode of being. This way the criterion of "identity" and "otherness" is derived from this mode of existence, not resulting in any contradiction.

In assessing religious beliefs, some people maintain that one is allowed to accept a belief if he has a sufficient proof which is convincing for all the rational people of the world. It has also been said that one should have sufficient proof for all their beliefs and actions and not to accept irrational matters. On the other hand, there are people who hold that reason is against faith or has no relation to it, or believe that all beliefs should be taken from the text of the scripture literally without taking any notice of reason. Moderate-critical rationalism is on the other end of the spectrum as regards the validity and proof of reason and holds that without reason it is impossible to be a truly believing person. However, not all matters can be established by reason and thus faith, on the one hand, sometimes should give way to irrational matters and on the other hand, reason is not always infallible in providing proof. So human beings cannot convince all people to accept their beliefs. In this article, the author seeks to defend moderate-critical rationalism.

The first lines of Aristotle's On interpretation are one of the most influential texts in the history of semantics and an important introduction to understanding and elaboration of some of Aristotle's views. According to the classical interpretation, Aristotle generally states that one’s writings represent spoken sounds and spoken sounds are in the first place representation of reactions of the soul and reactions of the soul are similar to things and spoken sounds are, as a result, mediated representation of things. In contemporary period, Norman Kretzmann challenged this interpretation and suggested an alternative one which became a starting point for reinterpreting this chapter. This article focuses on the first part of this chapter, gives an account of some classical and contemporary interpretations, and after studying some keywords, it offers an interpretation which holds that Aristotle's main purpose was to recognize three realms of spoken sound, thought, and reality and to address common and specific rules which are helpful in solving some problems.

There have been different readings of Plato’s works and treatises, especially in relation to “Republic”. Among them, treatises of this statesman and sophist are of special importance. Plato, in “Sophist”, writes that he would have a sufficient inquiry on “Philosopher” in a near future. This statement has led some researchers to look for Plato’s lost book on the “philosopher”. Does the statement really mean that he had in mind to write the book “Philosopher” especially considering the fact that he had written the “Statesman” before this? This paper, by focusing on the different readings, studies the relationship between “Sophist” and “Statesman”, and claims that writing of an independent treatise by Plato, under the name of “Philosopher” was not what he intended to do. In fact, by writing “Sophist” and “Statesman” he had characterized “Philosopher” to his readers. All the characteristics of the “Philosopher” are available in the previous treatises. This article drawing on the internal logic of Plato’s thought, this claim has been investigated from different perspectives.

This article first deals with the historical background of imagination and those who influenced Kant. Then, objectivity is explained and finally, the role of imagination in the Critique of Pure Reason is discussed.Imagination as a mental faculty has a unique place in Kant’s cognitive system. It plays a more active role in his system than it does in the philosophical systems before Kant. On the one hand, imagination is active in the sophisticated discussion of the transcendental deduction of the categories of understanding. On the other hand, it is active in schematism of the categories. Both of them are important in the objectivity of knowledge. The a priori forms of space and time are born of this faculty. All these are indicative of imagination’s prominent position in Kant’s epistemology; the issue that can be seen clearly in Kant's immediate successors. However, this prominence may be seen as a shortcoming in epistemology since it hinges objectivity on the subject.

The finitude of dimensions is the dominant Paradigm in the Muslim World and the most important argument for it is perhaps the argument of “Collimation”, proposed by Avicenna in his book ‘Oyoon Al Hikam, Fountains of wisdom’. According to this argument, if we assume an infinite line and then draw another parallel one which crosses the center of a sphere, then, as a result of the circular motion of the sphere, Collimation will happen between these two lines instantly. But such Collimation in an instant is impossible.Among Muslim philosophers, ‘Abul Barakat Al-Baghdadi’, ‘Khaje Naṣīr al-Dīn Al-Ṭūsī’, and ‘Allameh al-Hilli’ have critiqued and refuted this arguement. And ‘Mulla Șadrā’ and 'Fakhr Al-Dīn Razi' have defended it against these criticisms.In this article, first the argument is elaborated. Then, Abul Barakat’s criticisms and Fakhr Al-Dīn Razi’s replies are explained. Khaje Naṣīr al-Dīn Al-Ṭūsī’s critique and Mulla Șadrā’s reply will come next. It will be shown that Mulla Șadrā’s reply is incomplete but Al Tusi’s criticism is reasonable. Therefore, the Collimation argument fails to prove true.

According to Ibn Sina (Avicenna), in the forced movement of the moving object (projectile motion), the moving object acquiring the potency or inclination from the first mover continues motion until this force gradually diminishes and comes to a stop. Although this theory was first proposed by Philoponus, with the modifications Ibn Sina made, this theory has been called “Mayl Theory”. This theory is important in the history of science. This article, comparing the concept of inclination with the concepts of Newtonian mechanics, concludes that the concept of inclination does not correspond to any of the Newtonian mechanic concepts such as force, kinetic, momentum or inertia.

From Hegel‘s point of view, phenomenology of spirit is the evolution of consciousness from the particular to the notion. Hegel attempted to overcome the problem of epistemology, the fundamental separation between the real world and consciousness, and tried to reach a new formulation. To understand how this new formulation is achieved is to understand how the particular (Aufheben) is subsumed in the concept (Begriff). The real is subsumed negatively in the concept and this negativity is the foundation of the reality in consciousness. In this paper, we explain what Hegel means by negativity being subsumed in reality drawing on Giorgio Agamben’s special interpretation of the nature of language. Consciousness is never independent of the real since the negativity and its resistance always make the consciousness splitting and this makes it unhappy. This happening is the main reason for the tension of concept and thus its dialectical movement.