JOURNAL OF HUMAN SCIENCES
Year:2003 | Volume:- | Issue:36|Papers Count:11

In corresponding theory of truth, "Fa" is true just if it corresponds to Fa. Using "I-conversion" rule and "I-substitution" rule against the corresponding theory, the slingshot argument proves that "Fa" is true just if it corresponds to Gb. So, every fact will be identical to every other fact and all facts can be reduced to one (Great Fact). I will show that if we interpret slingshot argument intentionally, those two rules are not proper; and if we interpret it extensionally, the argument is valid, but it will have such an interpretation with which no opposition to corresponding theory will occur.

The main goal of this paper is the extraction of the viewpoints of the Persian poets concerning anthropology and the explanation of the related religious foundations.In this connection the poems of 20 Persian poets have been surveyed and compared with the Glorious Koran and Islamic traditions. Some of the compared topics have been as follows: man is the best creature and he is the goal of creation, the necessity of doing good deeds, ration and knowledge in man, real love in man, the states of man's creation, soul, weakness,... in man.A glance at the results of the research shows that anthropology in the Persian poem has a definite Koranic and religious foundation.

Suhrawardi, in the last chapter of his short treatise entitled "Abaut the Essence of love", has described love as the servant of eternal king and the policeman that surveys the seven climes everyday and attacks every corner of the world to suppress the wicked people. Those familiar with the old religion of Iran, can easily discern that love, as Suhrawardi has defined, is nothing but the mihr yazad of ancient Iranans.

In the past the majority of philosophers believed that in the process of perception one is aware of some item, called sense-datum, other than the physical object itself. So if I see a bird, for example, what I am directly aware is something which can roughly be thought of as a bird-image in or before my mind rather than a mind-independent physical bird. On the other hand, the majority of strictly contemporary epistemologists have denied that one need postulate such entities and affirm that we are directly aware of the external world itself. The argument form secondary qualities is one of the important reason brought for sense-datum theory. In this research I shall be arguing that this argument is not conclusive.

All philosophers have made the discussions related to soul-including definition, provement and properties (especially substantiality and immateriality)-as an introduction to prove its survival. Plato believes the soul as an eternal matter due to immateriality and extensiveness which is the causer of forms world. From point of view of Aristotle the soul is a printed face in the body and so it will not remain without body unless a power from it named "wisdom" to be eternal through joining to active wisdom. Aristotle has said ambiguously about of active wisdom. Poltinus believes wisdom as an immaterial and a divine matter which has separated from its source and has traveled to material world and it will remain as spiritual and intellectual after death. Avicenna believes the soul in spiritual contingency and survival and has considered two positions for it: the position of substance and the position of act. He believes the soul as the origin of body members and a cause for its compiling and combination, and will not destroy by body abolishment. Hereby, Avicenna proves spiritual resurrection. Sheykh-e-Eshragh has also considered the soul (asfahbod light) survival. Proving the forms world, he took a long step to prove corporeal resurrection. But he didn't prevail on disputes due to knowing imagination as material and considering the unseparated imagination in climbness arc. Mollasadra believes in material contingency of the soul and its dynamic essence. He proved the spiritual and corporeal resurrection by gaining from his school bases. The soul reaches to soul-imagination grade through substantial movement and has Form members. The imagination faculty is the connector of human beings to forms world. A few people reach to the position of intellectual existence from the last spiritual existence and become as intellectual human being and real prosperity means this. The wisdom faculty is the connector of human beings to wisdom world. Soul faculties are in the body from Aristotle's & Avicenna's view, but according to Sadra the soul is as same as the faculties. Reasoning and imagination are substantive of soul and the other faculties will be destroyed by body.

The present article discusses the issue of whether soul and body in the Leibniz philosophy are homogeneous or not, whether they influence each other, and how their conformity is explained, in other words, the article studies and analyzes Leibniz's ideas about the connection between soul and body. To this end, a few articles written by Leibniz, particularly monadology and discourses on metaphyics and some of his letters such as those written to Clark an Arneau and also the works of his expositors such as the expositions by Latta, Russel and Ishigora have been studied carefully, and the materials concerning soul and body have been extracted and analyzed resulting in the following:  1. Iebniz believes that soul and body are homogeneous, and soul is the ruling monad while body is a collection of subordinate monads, however, one cannot agree with this leibniz’s idea, because no proof exists to establish the monad, and if soul is to be a ruling monad, it is necessary that in some cases body hs considered as the soul. 2. There is no mutual influence between soul and body in leibniz philosophy, and their conformity is merely explained by the principle of pre-established harmony, however, this idea requires saying by coercion and loss of the best reason for establishing the soul.3. Combination of soul and body is inclusive at the level of monads and unanimous at the level of phenomena and establishment of this idea is based on the establishment of the monad theory and the definition offered by leibniz about soul and body.4. Soul is present throughout body, however, its presence does not mean diffusion.

In a reasoning called Borhan-é -Seddighin (the most evident, shown by delivers of god) presented by Sadrol-Motallehin Shirazi, not only the origin of being but all attributes and actions there of are being proved and It is verified that through perception of a stage of existence we may ascend to the highest and the most sublime stage of being which is nothing cut the god almighty. The issue on which the writer's efforts are focused is to find out the logical forms of reasoning and to compare them with priory and posteiory reasoning. In the marginal notes in Asfar, Allameh Tabatabaei concludes that such reasoning can not be classified as priory reasoning and considers that it is closer to the posteriory reasoning, while the late Mirza Mehdi Ashtiani maintains that it is very closed to the priory reasoning and believes that it would not fall in the category of the posteriory reasoning. If we refer to the explanations stated by Ebn-E-Sina in the Esharat Logic's and those of Khajeh Nassir Tousi and Allameh Helli as well as the respective descriptions and to review the logical boundaries of the priory and posteiory reasoning, we shall realize that Sadra is trying to initiate a logical innovation and present a new reasoning which is generated from within itself and may return to its validity and firmness.

The soul in the philosophy of Plato is an immaterial substance. In addition to immateriality the consciousness and actuality are two important attributes of the soul. So the soul as a immaterial substance has three attributes: immateriality, consciousness and actuality. The actuality of soul in addition to its other attributes, since Plato has been the beginning of the culture and civilization. In this article the actuality of the soul is, in the philosophies of Mulla Sadra and Kant, discussed. In the philosophy of Kant reason as the most important part of the soul is the cause of human civilization.

According to the Platonist a mathematical object, such as a number or a set, is an abstract object. These objects are thought to be non-physical, non-mental and acausal. Mathematical Platonism is the view that there exist such objects and that our theories describe them. What I am going to say in this paper is that at the moment, there is no decisive argument for or against mathematical Platonism. I go through the main arguments of Frege, Godel and Quine in favour of Platonism and try to refute it by E. P. R. thought experiment. At this stage, I advance the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum phenomena to support my argument. By discussing Hilbert's formalism and Field's factionalism, I then continue to show how the views of anti-Platonists could be advocated. I conclude that there is no fact of the matter as to whether there are abstract objects or there are not.