Journal of Existence and Knowledge
Year:2018 | Volume:5 | Issue:1 (9)|Papers Count:6

Natural law is a theory in the practical reason which is discussed in the practical fields of philosophy and theology. The religious version of the theory is responsible for the explanation of divine moral guidance and has two sub-versions: strong and weak. According to the latter, the function of the theory is merely to explain the nature of religious morality but understanding all or some practical principles of religious morality depends on the historical and revealed religious texts. Whereas according to the former, alongside the explanation of the nature of religious morality, natural reason can discover all the practical principles of religious morality. Fans of this reading believe that The essence of religious ethics is the natural law in such a way that natural reason independently has the ability to discover the moral precepts of God. Nazarali Taleghani is an experts in the field of religion and morality in Shiite, respectively. This article shows that his philosophical and theological assumptions imply the strong version of natural law.

In this essay, we seek to make a comparative overview of the Platonic Form with the main idea of Gottlob Frege in the creation of the Third Realm and to attribute the presence and existence of certain beings, especially thought, to that world. This is, of course, the first study to be carried out, and the main idea is to explore Frege’ s Platonism (meaning its term in contemporary philosophy) in analytic philosophy. Accordingly, the author first examines Plato's original idea of the creation of the universe as well as exemplary beings, then explains Frege's use of the idea and tries to match it. Then, by examining Frege's views on the Third Realm and the creatures present in it, especially thought, we attempt to determine whether a one-to-one correspondence can be established between the two. With the objections and criticisms that the author makes of describing the Frege system in the creation of the Third realm and thought, in the end he claims that the one-to-one correspondence between them cannot be raised. What has been examined as the end result is Frege's overall system and system in Platonism.

This article aims to investigate how explained the relation between the one and the pluralities in Early Pre-Socratic philosophers' thoughts. Discussion of the one\the pluralities matters especially introduced in the discussion of the relationship between the one principle and the coming to be of beings as the pluralities that they are pendent on that one principle. Early Pre-Socratic philosophers after accepting the one principle, proceed to explain the relationship between the one\the pluralities in different manners. We can classify these explanations in three mainstream. In the first stream both the one principle and the pluralities or beings accepted by Thales, Anaximenes, and Anaximander. In the second stream despite the fact that being of the one\the pluralities accepted, Xenophanesian and Heraclitusian understanding of the one principle somehow leads to recognizing that positing the one principle is not consisting with acceptance of pluralities. In the third stream that Parmenides is a most basic representative of it, being of pluralities absolutely denied. It should show that how throughout these three streams, concepts of "one", "pluralities" and "relationship" between the one and the pluralities developed and extend and provide the context for maximal dehiscence of monism attitude to the principle.

The subject of this article is to deliberate Locke and Spinoza’ s arguments for liberty and toleration. In order to achieve this, first i have defined and clarified the two main concepts of this project; toleration and liberty. Then I have discussed the context which causes initiation of defending toleration and liberty in modern ages while discussing the defending theories for religious and political violence in brief. After these, Spinoza’ s arguments supporting for toleration and liberty are presented in detail and next, John Lock’ s arguments are expressed. In the end, the regard of these two philosophers’ arguments defending toleration and liberty alongside the arguments defending religious and political violence has been deliberated. I have tried to show that which argument defending toleration takedown which principle defending religious or political violence.

The present study was conducted to explain and elucidate the late Wittgenstein theory of language games, deduce its implications in the field of education and, then, analyze and criticize it from the perspective of AllamehTabatabai; conceptual analysis, inference, and critical analysis were used in the present study. Thus, the basics and principles of Wittgenstein's language games theory were initially extracted and deduced; then, these principles are critically investigated from the perspective of AllamehTabatabai. According to the findings of the study, the main concepts of Wittgenstein's epistemology, including applied theory of meaning, sociality of language and the negation of private language, emphasize descriptive rather than explanatory aspects, are context-oriented and follow the rules of relativity. On the other hand, in his epistemological theorizations, AllamehTabatabai emphasizes foundationalism, certainty and clarity of knowledge, and the determinism of the truth. Relying on Wittgenstein's epistemology reveals weaknesses and deficiencies which could be clearly criticized according to AllamehTabatabai's beliefs and ideas, including non-determinism of truth, founding the human epistemic system based on his life, the denial of the discovery of knowledge, and the nature of contingency and relativity.

Feminists believe that there is a difference between female and male knowledge. They oppose individualism in epistemology. For them, gender and social circumstances have a significant role in acquiring knowledge, subject cannot know anything through introspection, but, knowledge has a social character and conditioned by relationships among the members of a society. It is through these social relations that knowledge is produced. Mulla Sadra pays attention to the social circumstances. He regards the subject’ s gender, social factors as preparatory causes. Feminist epistemology instead of distinguishing between the subject and object, insists on the relationship of the two. Mulla Sadra insists on the relation within the non-presential knowledge too, the relation that immaterial soul establishes with architypes. Thus, Mulla Sadra maintain the deeper level of relation between than feminists do, namely relation to the architypes. The subject in Mulla Sadra's epistemology, contrary to feminists, who regard the subject as the body, is essentially immaterial but material in act. Moreover, Mulla Sadra and feminists believe that emotional and intellectual relation to object of cognition cannot be overlooked.