In the openings of Sophist and Statesman, Plato does reportedly promise the reader that he intends to write a trilogy respectively entitled Sophist, Statesman and Philosopher. The two former dialogues have been authored and are available today, but this is not the case with the third dialogue; that is, Plato never writes the third dialogue, or as said differently, he does not pen it like the other two ones. There are different views concerning this third dialogue. This essay is a critical appraisal of Heidegger’s taking on this issue. Heidegger does not accept the common view among the interpreters that Plato has had the intention to write the triple dialogues and accordingly he seeks to retrieve the depiction of philosopher through Plato’s corpus. He believes that Plato has written the Philosopher but not in the form of other dialogues or rather in a Socratic fashion. This essay seeks to demonstrate that firstly, Plato does not meet his promise as regarding to the composition of Philosopher; secondly, the reason for not keeping his promise is that Plato believed basic philosophical themes could not be presented in written form, and that there is no benefit for the public in having them inscribed; thirdly, his depiction of philosopher can well be retrieved from his works.

Socrates is nowadays well-known as a philosopher, opponent of the Sophists of second half of the fifth century B.C., and the forerunner of a philosophical tradition cultivated by Plato and Aristotle, endured along with the whole history of philosophy with some alterations and moderations. But his contemporary Athenians sentenced him to death as a sophist, a heretic and a seducer of the youth. Was there anything in his character, method, behavior and sayings which led the Athenians to such a sentence? The present article answers this question. The conclusion is that there are some similarities between Socrates and the Sophists in the subject matter of discussion, in method, in individual character and in the content of teaching; these similarities can be seen in Plato’s dialogues too.

In Plato’s Sophist, Heidegger interprets Book VI of Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, particularly the discussion of Phronesis. In this book, he deals with five modes of Dasein’s opening, i.e. Episteme, Techne, Sophia, Nous and Phronesis. He has considered “Episteme and Sophia” to be a type of epistemic mode and “Phronesis and Techne” to be a type of calculative mode of Dasein’s soul. In fact, Heidegger introduces Aristotle’s five rational virtues as the modes of opening in Dasein. He has described Sophia as the highest type of the epistemic mode and Phronesis as the highest type of the calculative mode. It needs to be mentioned that Heidegger finally introduces Phronesis as the highest mode of Dasein’s opening. On the other hand, in Sein und Zeit, in the discussion of Dasein and particularly Dasein’s relations with other Daseins, one can understand Phronesis as a mode of Dasein’s existence. In fact, Dasein’s existential mode of being is its Phronetic existence. It is noteworthy that Heidegger in Plato’s Sophist presents the same interpretation of Phronesis that one finds in Sein und Zeit. Indeed, to express Phronesis, Heidegger refers to Dasein’s existential mode of being and finally he has fathomed the genuine mode of behavior as something in practice that lies in the call of conscience; this is what Heidegger presents as the forgotten conscience in Plato’s Sophist.

One of the prominent shophists lived in 4th and 5th Hegira centuries (11th & 12th AD centuries) is Ibn Bakooyeh Shirazi. In a poetic verse that Saadi (14th AD century) mentioned Baba Koohi as pseudonym for Ibn Bakuyeh Shirazi and within a phrase written by Isa Ibn Joneid Shirazi (15th AD cen.) at Tazkereh-E- Hezar Mazar (literally Hgiography of Thousand Tombs) book with title of BabaKoohi as well as what Reza Gholi Khan Hedayat mentioned in Tazkereh Reyaz Al-Arefinbook (literally Hagiography of Mystics’ Gardens) in 20th AD century and ascribed a verse collection to a poet with Babakoohi as his pen name i.e. Ibn Bakuyeh Shirazi who had been most likely buried in Neishaboor City; all of these have caused him to be considered as the same person with another one under title of Babakoohi whose tomb situated at north Shiraz and a poet who was living during 16th AD century, based on the reliable and strong reasons. But, there are some signs by means of reliable works based on which Ibn Bakooyeh is a person rather than one was buried at north Shiraz and one who is known as Babakoohi so that the poems collection that was ascribed to him really does not belong to him.

The present article is devised to deduce the new principles of new conceptualization of Cartesian doubt based on epistemological criticisms of Protagoras Sophist doubts. The findings of this study indicate that Descartes'epistemic style in a cross-sectional skepticism, Conjecture, discontinuous epistemic deterrence, intrinsic independence and self-centeredness of man, quantitativeism, criticism, rule of thumb, and coherence are criticized for the principles of teaching-learning in the educational system. One of these criticisms is the critiques made by the Protagoras Sophist doubts for cartesian doubts on the presentation of general rules, originality and equality of reason, the agent, the degree and criterion of truth, epistemic structuralism, the unification and classification of sciences, skepticism procedure and the search of truth, Criticism and denial of cultural-social conditions and in order to overcome this gap and defects, from its point of view, it has been redesigned. And with the inference of persistent research criticism, critical criticism, qualitative deterrence, artisticism, multiple self-orientation, the combination of horizons, representations-distribution of it in teaching-learning, it has hindered dogmatism and a systemic suspicion in Cartesian doubts.

There have been different readings of Plato’s works and treatises, especially in relation to “Republic”. Among them, treatises of this statesman and sophist are of special importance. Plato, in “Sophist”, writes that he would have a sufficient inquiry on “Philosopher” in a near future. This statement has led some researchers to look for Plato’s lost book on the “philosopher”. Does the statement really mean that he had in mind to write the book “Philosopher” especially considering the fact that he had written the “Statesman” before this? This paper, by focusing on the different readings, studies the relationship between “Sophist” and “Statesman”, and claims that writing of an independent treatise by Plato, under the name of “Philosopher” was not what he intended to do. In fact, by writing “Sophist” and “Statesman” he had characterized “Philosopher” to his readers. All the characteristics of the “Philosopher” are available in the previous treatises. This article drawing on the internal logic of Plato’s thought, this claim has been investigated from different perspectives.

This article is a survey of Augustin’s system of thought in the field of epistemology. In his point of view the possibility of gaining Knowledge by man in the field of epistemology, is his main problem. The means of getting knowledge differs with regards to mans object of knowledge. Natural and substantial affairs are conceived by sense and reason. Our knowledge in this filed is a relative one. Another part of mans knowledge is derived from enlightenment. That enlightenment which is influenced on man by Divine light. Enlightenment causes man’s direct contact with the matters that are not gained through sense and reason. This kind of knowledge is individual despite of possibility of being certain and doubtless. Revelation completes another part of mans epistemologic system of thought. Man discovers the aims of God in creation through Him by revelation. This knowledge is absolutely authoritative and we accept it as a certain knowledge.

The present paper investigates into one of the important subject in mystic conduct i.e. Panoramic Journey within mystical texts up to Hegira 7th century (14th AD century). After purposing an introduction about this journey, author deals with definition of (mystic) conduct and wayfaring and history of journey in Quran and Islamic Traditions (Hadith) and explained them briefly. The author has also extracted types of conduct and journey from mystic texts and introduced them and then dealt with definition of sophists’ goals concerning to this journey and the needed tools for such conduct and then explained about ceremonies of journey and for entering into Khanghah (Sophist Convent) and the relation of Sophist Shekhs (masters) with this conduct. At the end, author has expressed the impacts and benefits of Sophist journey.

Socrates never left any written work from himself, but we can know about him through Plato’s coherent works. The Socrates portrayed in his works has been of interest to philosophers during the last 2500 years. Socrates stands at the beginning of the history of philosophy through Plato and is the symbol of philosophy, the same as philosophy, and a loveable picture of philosophy. He is truly the teacher of philosophers, and that is why philosophers like the Socrates introduced by Plato and wish to know more about him. This paper deals with some questions as follows: Who is Plato’s Socrates? How does he portray Socrates in his works? What are the characteristics of his Socrates, and why and how he developed them? Here, the writers also deal with the most important and basic feature of Socrates as explained by Plato.Socrates is a speaker of true words, and this feature unveils his particular wisdom; he speaks the right word as opposed to the speakers of wrong words. The writers have also tried to inquire into what the right word is, who its speaker is, and why he speaks the right word, as well as what the wrong word is, who its speaker is, and why he speaks the wrong word within the confinement of this paper.

Present research has reviewed and compared the satire of socialist and Sufi (Sophist) poets during 1300 and 1400 (A. D) in order to indicate to what extent the different thinking attitudes have been influential in the emergence of specific kind of satire. Assessed criteria have been reduced to three aspects: personification, satire techniques and satire purposes. By analyzing data, it seems that the satire of socialist poets, their thoughts have been more adjusted to realism aspects, have an objective feature in regard to languages rhetoric's, techniques, purposes and content, i. e, a satire originated from lingual creativity, showed it self in the surface structure. In contrast, sophist poets with their mystical viewpoint, the purposes and content of their satire in accordance to their thoughts emerged in a subjective manner, accordingly, their satire emerged on the haven of rhetoric's and appeared in the bed of lingual based satire, meanwhile, the satire of sophist poets, as their internal state, have penetrated in the structure and provided a context to the formation of structural satire.