NAMEH-YE-MOFID
Year:2005 | Volume:11 | Issue:1 (47 PHILOSOPHY)|Papers Count:6

The semantic of proper names is one of imprtant issues in philosophy of logic. In this article I have examined some most famous theories on this subject and evaluvated Mil's, Frege's , Russell's and Kripke's theory. Although I have almost favoured Kripke's opinion, but I think it is insufficient for making clear logical role of proper name. So by revising it and adding some condition, I have tried to defend the view that when proper name designates its referent some descriptions should be considered; those descriptions don't give the sense of proper name, but user thinks , rightly or wrongly, that they fix its referent. This analysis, of course, contains some pragmatical ingredient and is not purely semantical.

In the present article, at the outset, the opinions of those before Hegel on art and aesthetics and its in fluence on German idealism and particularly Hegl have been addressed. Then, it has studied the issue of death of art and the interpretation of Hegl's interpreters (Commnentaters) and its relation with Christianity in view of doctrines of modern period and emergence of a fresh interpretation of art and its independence from Christianity in the aforementioned period.

Carnap's semantical approach and development of his line of thoughts about realismr is described. Carnap, in his last move by Ramsey-sentence approach, took a neutralized position. I compare Carnap's so called neutralism, as his final position, and Russell's structural realism, then examine his development of views and finally show that his alleged neutralism is inconclusive, and trivial.

In Sartr's viewpoint, the relationship between the human beings id is hostile and devoid of any good intentions. To describe this relationship, he uses metaphor of "look" and says: "Another" tries to deprive me of my freedom by his look and make me his own slave by dominating me. Sartre calls God "absolute another" and believes that the hostility ruling on the relationships of human beings is more acutely ruling on the relationship between God and human being as well. Since God, as absolute subject and look, Seizes human being's freedom and consequently his identity, then he changes him into an object. The article continues to deal with the critique of this viewpoint.

 Prior to Molla Sadra, Muslim scholars such as Farabi, Ibn-e Sina and so on had talked about emanation system: Molla Sadra in some of his works such as "Al-Mashare" has pointed out generally the discussion of emanation system; besides, he stipulates emanation system in dual form and similar to Farabi in some of his treatises like "Adjwabah Al-Masael Al-Nasiriah" and in trilateral form and similar to Avicenna in the treatises like "Shavahed Al-Robubiah" and "Al Mabda va Al-Maād - of course, there are some discrepancies in additions to similarities between Molla Sadra's viewpoint and Farabi and Ibn-e Sina's viewpoint - However, in the treatise called "Al-Varedat Al-Qalabiah Fi Ma're fate Al-Roboubieh", emanation system slightly distances from peripateticist system and approaches illuminationist system, and in the book called "Al-Shavahed Al-Robubiah" and "Al-Asfar Al-Arbaah" emanation system is interpreted my stoically. There's a discrimination between Sadra's viewpoint on emanation system and the viewpoints of peripateticist and illuminationist Philosophers as well as mystics and that's Sadra's emphasis on originality and analogicity of being.

Discussion about what human soul is and what relation ship it has with the body has been Counted among philosophical discussions widespread in every period. In the era of plato and Aristotle, some reasons were established for the immateriality of soul. Until Bu-Ali produced numerous reasons for affirmation proof of the immateriality of soul. So it was criticized. Fakhre Razi Collected his reasons which seemed to be scattered as well as their objections. After him Molla Sadra presented Bu-Ali and Fakhr Razi's reasons in other words and with further explanations. Molla Hadi Sabze vari also gave those reasons, until Ayatollah Hassan Zadeh Amoli. Collected all the reasons for the immateriality of soul and represented them in an independent book. However, all of those reasons encountered difficulties and objections. The late shalid matlahhari looked at the immateriality of soul from another perspective. Today, other reasons should be investigated for the study of the immateriality of soul.