KNOWLEDGE (JOURNAL OF HUMAN SCIENCES)
Year:2020 | Volume:13 | Issue:82/1|Papers Count:12

One of the most important concerns for Muslim philosophers and mystics was the question on Being (Wojud) and its degrees. They regard absolute being as the main subject of their thoughts. This is also the basis of thought in the Ibn Arabi’ s mysticism and his successors. Qeysari regard Being (Wojud) as Truth. He does not accept the metaphysical approach to being as most abstract concept. In his view, being is most real and meaningful section of everything. On the other hand, Qeysari does not regard Being (Wojud) as something that we can understand it rationally. In addition, he does not regard being (Wojud) as something only restricted in natural world. In his view, Being (Wojud) is beyond our rational faculties, and its reality is obvious only for God. In this article, we, according to Qeysari’ s mystical writings especially his introduction in interpretation to the Fosus Alhekam, will try to survey Qeysari’ s metaphysical explorations on Being (Wojud) and his approach on it as Truth. We will show that Qeysari, like other Muslim mystics as Mulla Sadra, distance from traditional Aristotelian metaphysics.

The first step of this paper is to differentiate between two possible aesthetic encounter with nature. The core of this difference is located in an effect that art has on its audience. The effect, named here Poetry-strickenness (being blighted by poetry), is ascribed to poetry because of its linguistic origin. It is also counted as a blight because of the inauthentic man-nature (or man-world) relation that it brings about. Nevertheless Poetry-strickenness is at the same time recognized as a powerful operator in generating and sustaining culture. For it is this very blight that facilitate the possibility of comprehending and feeling the passions and moods of the others. This comprehension leads to the acceptance of others as different from us; and it is incontrovertible that such an acceptance is necessary for the genesis of civilized society. Therefore there is a dilemma between authenticity and culture essentially based on how we approach art or poetry. Demonstrating this dilemma is the main aim of this paper. But we also propose in response to this dilemma a sketch of what can be called a rational culture. In this kind of culture every single poem in every encounter by everyone is under the surveillance of reason. The process of becoming cultured therefore would be based on knowing and not feeling.

A great number of contemporary & traditional philosophers, used the principle of the “ impossibility of the impression of the big things in small places” to prove the immateriality of the soul. Also, they have used this principle for other purposes. These thinkers have not provided an argument to prove this principle. they seem to have taken this principle as a self-evident principle. Today, because of the variety of reasons, including recent scientific advances, especially in two branches of science, biology and physics, the materialists have presented a materialistic explanation about the “ process of obtaining perceptions” . If we accept it, it means: the traditional philosophers, because of the lack of advanced knowledge, thought that: “ the impression of the Big things in small places” is impossible in the “ world of perceptions” , in addition to the “ material universe” ; But today, scientific researches has clarified that “ impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places in the world of sense perception” not only isn’ t impossible, but also quite possible and it is scientifically justifiable. This paper prove that the Materialists’ argument is wrong. We do this by comparing these two principles with together: “ impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places in the world of sense perception” and “ materialistic process of obtaining perceptions” ; we want to prove that the principle of “ impossibility of the impression of the Big things in small places” not only is happened in the real world (material word), but also in the “ world of sense perceptions” .

Hermeneutical phenomenology is a philosophical approach which is emerged from the combination of two important attitudes in the continental philosophy. Heidegger (1889-1976), who is considered as the founder of hermeneutical phenomenology, makes a graft between these two attitudes innovatively. This task influenced by Husserl’ s phenomenological requirements concerning the sense and interpretation, and his famous slogan: “ toward the things itself” . After Heidegger, Ricoeur (1913-2005) who is influenced by the concept of epoche in Husserl’ s phenomenology makes such a graft in an innovative way. The difference between their views is that Heidegger, in Ricoeur’ s statement, follows the short route taken for ontological analysis of Dasein, and Ricoeur proposes a long detour, starting with semantic considerations within the analysis of symbolic expressions of the human being. The basic thesis for the present research is to show that, despite different approaches in Heidegger and Ricoeur’ s thought toward this subject, in both views “ understanding” can be considered as one of the most important conditions of the possibility of this connection. Their common viewpoint about “ understanding” could be considered as a good reason for this claim. The importance of proving this thesis is that we can then by scrutinizing all the implications of understanding, find a vast area of possibilities in this conjunction that open lots of horizons in hermeneutics, epistemology, ontology and phenomenology which help us toward the way of truth.

The main question is what is pathos and what can it have to do with art? Pathos is one of the concepts that are very important in Aristotle's thought. To the extent that contemporary researches emphasize the importance of the pathos and its fundamental role in the reading of Aristotle’ s thought. Heidegger was one of the first scholars to pay attention to Pathos in contemporary times. Subsequently, the French phenomenologist Michel Henry has been critical of Heidegger in his relation to Aristotle, and the theoretical origins of this article are rooted in Henry's ideas about Pathos. Michelle Henry has a critical reading of Heidegger and Husserl and calls his phenomenology “ Phenomenology of life” . He believes that real life is invisible and the secret meaning of life is as a pathos that can only be experienced within. According to Henry, art, especially abstract art, has been able to show this invisible meaning. Unlike Heidegger, he places the essence of art in life, not in the world. Henry traces the origins of “ Pathos” to Greece, but the meaning he derives from it differs from its conventional historical view. In Henry's reading of Pathos, the pain and suffering that comes with Aristotle's work becomes the idea of liberation and pleasure. In the end, he views Pathos as a pain and pleasure that liberates and promotes it and places it at the center of human life, believing that some works of art can best represent it. For this reason, for an artist like Kandinsky, Henry is someone who looks at the world and phenomena more deeply than other artists and can reflect on the inner experience in his work.

Avicenna in al-Ishā rā t wa-l-tanbī hā t has described pleasure as perception and reaching to something which is perfection for the perceiver. In this book that is one of his last books, he has used a special word “ Neil” that has not been used in other his texts. So, it seems that the meaning and concept of this word is very important. Fakhr Razi one of his text commentators has claimed that this word had been pointless, so omitting it cannot be an impediment to understanding the concept of this text. Another one, Khajeh Nasir Tusi believed achieving the essence of what is perceived is the meaning of this word. In his point of view, the pleasure has been perceived when the perceiver can achieve the essence of what is perceived. Whereas that’ s a contradiction with the Avicenna’ s philosophy, because achieving the essence of things in the sense-perception is impossible. It means that the mediation of the five senses and going through different mental stages make perception of sense things. Although the description of Khajeh Nasir has been used in some contemporary investigation it should be reviewed and criticized. Therefore, for finding the best description of “ Neil” , it is necessary to review this text by the descriptive-analytical method and also other his pleasure’ s texts in other his books. The results of this research show that based on Avicenna’ s thought, the interpretation of “ Neil” to the knowledge by the presence or the presence perception for a sense pleasure is not acceptable.

“ Question of Being” is Martin Heidegger’ s most famous concern throughout his intellectual life. This question, according to his own narrative, has started from the very beginning to the moment of his death, and all of his writings can be traced back to this question. However, understanding the meaning and formal structure of the question of being, is essentially based on an understanding of the way Heidegger use the phenomenon of “ question” and its relation to the essence of human beings. The present paper’ s goal is to illuminate Heidegger’ s approach to this fundamental element by laying down the meaning horizon of “ question” in the history of philosophy, so that the how and why of using “ Question” in his early works come to light. To do this, first, the significance, the nature and the central role of the question in the history of philosophy will be examined. Next, by discussing Heidegger’ s conception of phenomenon of Question in Being and Time, and his early lectures, Questioning’ s formal formulation and material determination will be disscussed.

In search of theoretical foundations of Iranian and Islamic Aesthetics, normally words like “ beauty” and “ art” are being searched for in classic text of philosophy, theology and mysticism. As a result, such words are found in Iranian mysticism. Therefore, complex mystic guidelines and concepts are supposed to be the foundation of Iranian art. The present study intends to take a descriptive approach, and propose a different “ starting point” in the search of aesthetic theory. This method is based on the importance of literature in Persian culture, and considers the historical establishment of an important field of study in literature “ Badi” as a parallel field for aesthetics. Based on the historical importance of literature in Persian culture, religious limitations for illustration, and dominance of verbal culture, Badi can be proposed as a significant starting point for any aesthetic theory. The reason for this proposal is that Badi is the only field of study related to art that involves countless terminology for categorizing and evaluating important issues of any aesthetic theory like form, simile and metaphor.

The question before this article is simple: What is the relationship between the thought of Gilles Deleuze-Felix Guattari and postmodernism? What benefits or can postmodernism benefit from these two? If we accept Frederick Jameson’ s definition of postmodernism as the cultural logic of late capitalism, then is Deleuze-in Slavoj Zizek’ s terms-one of the ideologies of digital capitalism? And in what sense is it an ideology? Our attempt in this article is to show how Deleuze (aesthetic politics, schizophrenic politics, or Deleuze and Guattari ethics) adapts to today’ s postmodernist world and loses its revolutionary character. In this article, we have assumed the reader’ s previous acquaintance with Deleuze and Guattari, and our attention is more focused on the critiques of Deleuze and Guattari and review of them, because there is not much time here to pay detailed attention to their views.

Nowadays dealing with theorization is the most necessary aspect of art discussions, something that doesn’ t have a long history in our culture. Our art has declined since late Safavid, and the causes have several inner and outer relations to art. Lack of creativity is the most important inner cause. This is why theorizing about creativity is necessary. This essay is based on the mythology of Gilbert Durand. Mythanalyse is chosen as method and works of Sohrevardi as case study. The results show that the source of creativity is truth; the artist surges strongly in perceptual levels that he reaches to rational perception and understanding the truth, so with the help of this he is capable of creativity. Beauty is the glory of truth, as according to Sohrevardi beauty and perfection are the same and creativity, the result of perfection, if get in to action properly the result will be beauty.

Despite Agamben’ s assertion that his project somehow corrects or completes Foucault’ s political thoughts, it seems that there are some deep and fundamental differences between them. Foucault rejects any kind of theory of power and believes that the analysis of power in the contemporary world should be freed from juridical-theological presuppositions. In contrast, in Agamben’ s thought we come across some obvious elements of the classical understating of power and its theological presupposition so that political theology is a basic constituent of his theory about sovereign power. Though Foucault’ s aim is mostly to analyze power’ s mechanisms according to a micro-politics, he never thinks about the role of a person or state and his/her or its decision as a foundation for political situation. In contrast, he regards such a point of view as the feature of the classical theories about power. For him power is a Nietzschean concept which is the foundation of everything. Agamben, following Schmitt, regards power as the sovereign power. He believes that there is a logic for our contemporary political situation called “ the state of exception” , that is the result of sovereign decision. This article tries to analyze the meaning and mechanism of biopower and biopolitics in both thinkers and explain the way that Agamben’ s political theory can be said to be rooted in Foucault’ s analysis.

The concept of time is integral to the discussion of Bergson and Heidegger. As Bergson observes, time is not an external quantity but an inner quality. It constitutes the “ duration” comprising the modes of the individual’ s consciousness and confirms their change and variety. Similarly, Heidegger explores the origin of authentic time within Dasein’ s consciousness and attaches Dasein’ s originality and authenticity to the originality and authenticity of his “ temporality” . To Heidegger, Dasein’ s perception of his future and his death constitute the most significant elements of his “ temporality” . But the two philosopher’ s emphasis on the individuality of the origin of time jeopardizes the relation between authentic time and presence of the Other. To put another way, as Bergson and Heidegger both claim, the truth of time is merely obtained in solitude and the time experienced in Other’ s proximity is essentially external, public, and objective. Are we, therefore, to concede that ethics and the truth of time are essentially asynchronous, each occurring independently? The present study pursues the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas for an answer. To Levinas, understanding his philosophy of ethics depends upon understanding time in its authenticity and originality. Nevertheless, the understanding of time Levinas calls original fundamentally defies that of Bergson and Heidegger. As he maintains, time does not evolve in solitude but in relation with the Other. Attempting to observe the most crucial differences between Levinas’ understanding of time and Bergson’ s and Heidegger’ s, and also trying to illuminate the ambiguities of the relation between temporality and alterity in Levinas’ thought, the present research attempts to clarify how the latter’ s innovative attitude has shed a new light on the relation between time and otherness.