NAMEH-YE-MOFID
Year:2003 | Volume:8 | Issue:6 (34 PHILOSOPHY)|Papers Count:15

The question of the relationship between moral judgments and reality is considered as an important question in moral philosophy. A group of philosophers which constitute the majority of moral philosophers in the west, reject the question and a minor group support it.In this article, the writer emphasizes on the relationship in question, stating the objections and criticisms on the relationship between moral judgments and reality and their disastrous consequences when the relationship in question is denied. The denial of this relationship results in moral relativism which is chiefly rejected by practical moralists, which in turn obstacles the path to any useful discussions on it. Another negative result of its denial is that moral judgments might be considered to be “discourse inacheve” which bring about various unacceptable consequences. The writer believes that moral statements are necessary and the necessity of moral statements can be achieved by considering the effects of moral acts on the perfection of moral agents, a view which can be indirectly arrived at by taking into consideration the assertion made by the moral philosophers that moral acts are purposeful.

Indian philosophical system of thought dates back from two thousand years and continues to manifest itself in two systems known as "Astika" (i.e. traditional or orthodox) and "Nastika" (meaning "non-traditional" or heteredox). Among the six traditional or orthodox schools of thought, "Vedante" is considered to be of the most significance. Throughout the Indian history, Vedantan philosophers have been greatly inspired or influenced by Upanishads" and they have expressed concern over the understanding of the nature of God, man, the material world and the relationship between them.The chief Vedantan philosophers are not unanimous as to the interpretation of the relationship in question as a result of which three subsidiary movements launched within this school of thought. The school of Indian thought known as "Advaite Vedante" whose chief representative is Shankara ("Sankara") has gained wide acceptance among Indian philosophical schools of thought.The Advaite has taken a moderate route and its chief representative is Rama. The school of thought known as "Advaite" whose chief representative is "Madhva" is said to be more recent than the other two schools of thought and fully pluralistic.

The analysis of Virtue and its relationship with knowledge is considered to be one of the important issues in moral philosophy, and the way in which virtue and knowledge is conceived is of significance in ethics, too.Frankenna thought of virtue as essential to knowledge and maintained that if one can distinguish what is wrong from what is right, nobody can force him or her to act in opposition to his knowledge.After Socrates, other philosophers reacted against this concept of virtue. Plato, Socrates" pupil, adopted his master’s concept of virtue, but Aristotle, Plato’s pupil, rejected Socrates" concept of virtue and criticized it in detail. This article aims to make some remarks on Aristotle’s critique of Socrates" concept of virtue. These remarks and criticisms seek to explain Aristotle view of the subject in question on the one hand, and cast light on Socrates" concept of virtue by taking into consideration certain views on the other.Aristotle’s most important critique of Socrates" concept of virtue is that this concept ignores the effects desires and passions excerpt on human actions. It is important to note that, Aristotle in one of his critiques of Socrates" concept of virtue, states that he is incapable of rejecting Socrates" concept of Virtue conclusively and apt to submit it.

No doubt, one of the most significant philosophical systems in the west which is said to be a turning point in developing the western thought is that of the distinguished German philosopher, Immanuel Kant (1724-1804). In the first section of "the Critique of Pure Reason", Kant is concerned with the three human faculties: sensation, understanding, and, reason. In Transcendental Dialectic which is considered to be the most important part of his "Critique", Kant seeks to study reason, ideas and their relation with sensation and understanding. According to Kant, reason may have two distinct functions: logical and pure (transcendental) functions. Reason is of certain principles through which rules of understanding can be united. These principles are what we call apriori universal knowledge which are derived from the concepts of pure reason. Reason, for Kant, has another function according to which it is of a fundamental principle, a transcendental principle. This fundamental principle is based on the proposition that the chain of logical premises to which reason gain access, is of unconditioned or Absolute, reason arrives at concepts (ideas) which has no exemplifications in our experience. These concepts are what Kant calls the "ideas of pure reason". These pure ideas or concepts have positive functions which are regulative and have some negative functions which are constitutive. These two functions are explained in detail throughout the article.

In examining the sense of predicate we can find three important theses in Frege’s theory:1- The mode of presentation of referent is contained in the sense of an expression. So, the sense of predicate contains the mode of presentation of concepts, as its referent.2- The sense of predicate is unsaturated.3- The sense of predicate is part of the sense of the sentence in which it occurs.Every given significant commentary for the sense of predicate violates at least one of the above theses. Also, Dummett and Klement give special commentary for unsaturatedness of the sense of predicate, but both of them are inconsistent with what appears from Frege. It seems, in general, that a proper explanation which will be consistent with all three theses cannot be given.

Classical foundationalism is the most important theory about epistemic justification. Aristotle is the founder of this theory. Many philosophers accepted this theory. Avicenna, Aquinas, Descartes, Luck, Chisholm are among them. This theory is an attempt for solving the problem of skepticism, especially justification skepticism. This theory divides the noetic structure of human beings into basic beliefs and inferential beliefs and accepts deduction as the only way of justifying our beliefs. So the theory rejects induction and analogy. After introducing the theory I will go showing that this theory is not successful in solving the problem of skepticism.

After the appearance of the philosophy in the field of Islamic culture, the feeling of contradiction between religion and philosophy made Muslem thinkers take different Positions. Some of them left philosophy behind themselves and rejected it, and a few of them preferred philosophy to religion, but a thinker as Farabi founded a new philosophical school in which the Revelation was considered as knowledge, which was expressed in philosophical method. And therefore it became clear that the wisdom and religion had the same origin, and there was no contradiction between them. After Farabi, Avecien competed his theory and increased important elements to it but Averose, because of his dogmatic emphasis on Aristotalian philosophy, revived it. The philosophy which Averose revived was irrelevant to the spirit of Islamic philosophy and was not capable of philosophical expression of Revelation as supernatural and unexperimental knowledge.And despairingly of his philosophy, by reliance of juristic and theological presuppositions, in his book named "Fasl al Maghal" his attempt was unsuccessful for connection between wisdom and religion, which has been criticized in present essay.

Great Abrahamic religions today are being attacked by atheistic beliefs and are said to be responsible for meeting the various expectations human beings demand from religion in this modem age.In order to reach a single unified position, the interreligious dialogues seem to be inevitable. This article seeks to propose that the way in which the dialogue takes form can be traced in the core of religions themselves and the mystics in various religious traditions can play a great role in paving the way for carrying out such dialogues Seeking to explain the dialogue between Islam and Christianity, the writer has selected Ibn Arabi and Meister Eckhart, the two distinguished mystics, to discuss on the subject in question from their points of view. In addition, he tries to cast light on religious tolerance and study the difference between religious tolerance and religious pluralism, the unity of religions, the differences claimed to exist among the laws (Shari’ has)and the theological obstacles or restrictions facing the dialougues and the way in which they can be removed.