JOURNAL OF PHILOSOPHICAL MEDITATIONS
Year:2018 | Volume:8 | Issue:20|Papers Count:10

Most Muslim philosophers believe that the body consists of two essential elements called “prime matter” and “corporal form” that those need each other in their existence and are concomitant together. If "matter" does not exist, "form" cannot be found, because it need to place (locus). Also, if the "form" there is no, the "matter" does not exist, because the "matter" has not any kind of actuality and it is actualized by "form". So Islamic philosophers consider that the “form" is partner of cause of "matter”. We believe that despite the enormous efforts that have been done, the success has not been achieved, because the explanation of Muslim philosophers in this issue is faced many problems. In this paper, we first explain their theory, and then show its problems.

This paper discusses the issue of the value of life, which is one of the spiritual crises of modern man. Along with examining the ideas of naturalists about the matter, by reviewing Allameh Tabatabaee’s al-Mizan entirely, the author has tried to extract his viewpoint, which is a supernaturalist and God-centered viewpoint. According to him, our life in this world will be null and absurd if we do not believe in God and in the life after death; however, it is possible to reach divine meeting (Liqa’allah) and the status of being God’s vicegerent (Khalifat Allah) through faith and good deeds. Considering the various degrees of value that can be assigned to people’s lives, this article claims that although according to Allame’s view the value of life is almost nothing when its liver does not believe in God, it is not so subjectively from that liver’s perspective. At the same time, integrating the supernatural viewpoint of Allameh and naturalist views leads us to the conclusion that even objectively, each of these two viewpoints seeks to propose the prerequisites for achieving a specific level of value of life.

The nature of Propositional knowledge is of important issues in contemporary epistemology. The common theory of epistemologists, knows propositional knowledge as "justified true belief", but this view encountered the problem called “Gettier problem ". The contemporary epistemologists caused a fundamental rethink with the concept of knowledge and different approaches, based on Gettier criticism on the tripartite analysis of knowledge. This essay seeks to extract theory of Propositional knowledge sadr-ol-mote’allehin to correspond to contemporary epistemology approaches through review of 'knowledge' issue in transcendent theosophy (Hikmah Muta’liyah). Sadra's theory of Propositional knowledge is multifaceted theory; an aspect of epistemic and cognitive function. He not only does not reduce knowledge to propositional knowledge alone, but also he considers it as an aspect of cognitive function. Knowledge of recent aspect affecting on subject. He does not limit to a way achieving knowledge by one method, rather with high attitude, knows effective in achieving knowledge of all faculties, knowledge and moral virtues, divine faculty even God.

Shame’s conceptualization is one of the most challenging discussions in psychological studies. This challenge creates many ambiguities for both psychologists and theologians in Eastern cultures especially Iranian-Islamic culture. This paper discusses the dominant psychological researches about shame and tries to compare the outcome of these researches with Abdulkarim Soroush’s theological-moral view about shame. This comparison, we believe, helps us to understand their different approaches for further psychological and theological studies. We used descriptive-analytical method for the current research and our resources were mostly psychological books, article and set of Soroush’s lectures. Also use the soroush books of Gods ethics for showing the soroush views in moral epistemology We conclude that although psychologists and theologians are talking about the same terminology, i. e. shame, they are coming from totally different planet in different paradigms with different philosophical-psychological assumptions. The different assumptions is showed for example about type of problem representation, innate view about shame, attention to ontological component of shame, truthful of shame, attention to virtue ethics of shame and methodology of investigation of concept and function of shame. This philosophical and psychological assumptions is discussed.

The concept of perfection in Aristotle's metaphysics is expressed with words like Energia and Entelecheia, Both in English have been translated into actuality. Aristotle has spoken on various topics of Energia and Entelecheia: In metaphysics, in the discussion of form, Potentiality and Actuality and four causes It is discussed. In psychology, Soul is defined as perfection. And in physics in motion debate, And in ethics, the discussion of happiness has used "perfection" and " Actuality". The question is what is the meaning of the two terms Energia and Entelecheia And what is the relationship between their meanings in these different topics? Why did Aristotle use two words to express his purpose? Can these two words be delivered? Aristotle did not provide for explicit and clear definition Energia and Entelecheia. The distinction is expressed in the form of examples. The difference between Energia and Entelecheia is very delicate; Energia means certain work Entelecheia means perfection and Totality. In this paper, we seek to explain the meaning of Energia and Entelecheia in Aristotle's thought in the various topics Aristotle has spoken of as the concept of "actuality" and "perfection", and explain their position and difference. To this end, we brought and analyzed Energia in four meanings Which are delivered to each other and Entelecheia in two senses Which can not be delivered And we came to the conclusion that "Energia" is a preliminary meaning for the meaning of "Entelecheia".

The question of relation between God and Universe Throughout the history of philosophy always have been an important and vital one. Sometimes this relation is a serious, connected one and in every moment but sometimes it is Disconnected and secular. In this essay, is tried on the base of Hegel’s philosophy of religion, an important philosopher who reinterpreted the Christianity, the relation between God and The universe have been explained. What is the position of God in the universe? For this, after discusses the binary opposition between the transcendence and immanence in the interpretation of Protestantism, and then, defines secularism to explain these concepts, and finally elaborates on the concept of Trinity, an important Christian doctrine, which is a significant concept in Hegel’s philosophy of religion. This doctrine, according to Hegel’s own interpretations, constitutes the basis for the subject-object dialectics, and he interprets dialectics with trinity. At the end the relation between God and The universe explained in the Hegel’s view from the point of view of the binary opposition between the transcendence and immanence.

When we ask if Strong AI is possible we ask, in fact, if AI can lead to the level in which most basic human intelligence features achieved. In this research we ask this question more specifically about understanding language. There are some philosophical challenges in the way of modeling linguistic understanding for AI Machines. Based on Frame Problem, i. e. updating beliefs based on new beliefs and behaviors, is raised as a frame problem in the literature of artificial intelligence as well as philosophy (in the field of epistemology), we show these challenges as: first, in a specific situation how we can distinguish relevant features for understanding a bit of language from irrelevant ones? second, if we understand a bit of language by inference from our previous knowledge about the world and previous linguistic knowledge, how we can understand a bit of language immediately? third, how we can understand polysemous and ambiguous words?

Muslims philosophers in some of matters whic isn’t plural accept the causal relation. This causality was named rationl analysis by Mulla Sadra. The causality of substance for accident, matter for the form and essence for its necessary accedens are examples of analytical causality. Analytical causality has numerous functions in Islamic philosophy which are in tow category: epistemological and ontological. The ontological functions of analytical causality are reality of essences, resolving of intertextual inconsistencies for example causality and multiplicity and arguments of substentioial movement, proving of personal unity of existence and resolving the problem of criterion of dependence of effect to causeMuslims philosophers in some of matters whic isn’t plural accept the causal relation. This causality was named rationl analysis by Mulla Sadra. The causality of substance for accident, matter for the form and essence for its necessary accedens are examples of analytical causality. Analytical causality has numerous functions in Islamic philosophy which are in tow category: epistemological and ontological. The ontological functions of analytical causality are reality of essences, resolving of intertextual inconsistencies for example causality and multiplicity and arguments of substentioial movement, proving of personal unity of existence and resolving the problem of criterion of dependence of effect to cause.

Sadra believes that all types of causes are finite. one type of this causes is the material cause. If we believe that the material causes of one thing is finite, then we must accept that the time is also finite. but there are good reasons that proves the infinity of time. so we must resolve the conflict between these two reasons. the solution is based on the base of division of time. the time divided to its parts, because of the division of distance of the movement that the time is the value of it. so replacing the straight path to the circular path will help us resolving the problem. In fact, the idea that we have infinite time, is based on the notion of an infinite straight distance while the distance is different than the time, and also the distance that produces the infinite time could be on a circular path, in which case the problem of contradiction between the reasons of infinity of time will be solved.

The problem of the standard of judging in ethical criticism of art is one of the most decisive problems in this arena, the problem that which one of the set of values is the standard of judging artworks. Now, one of the most recent attitudes is Value Pluralism, which beside of the three other main attitudes, Moralism, Aestheticism, and Autonomism, provides a deferent presentation, namely a combination of values (including ethical and aesthetic ones) is ultimately the standard of judging art. A prominent representative of Value Pluralism in ethical criticism of art is Berys Gaut. In defending his characteristic approach to ethical criticism of art, he takes Value Pluralism. However, it seems that Value Pluralism, at least according to Guat, comes to grips with the problems make it unjustifiable. The Pluralist either must accept that the ultimate decision on value of art will reduce to the taste of judger, must acknowledge that his attitude will ultimately reduce to the three other main ones, or must present a new standard to which the both aesthetic and ethical values are interchangeable. It is clear that in the first case criticism in the sense of a systematic action will be canceled, and in the second and third cases Value Pluralism will have no realizable sense.