After offering an overview of some of the main themes of Popper’s political thought, the paper argues that his account faces two problems relating to institutions. The first is that while Popper stresses the ‘rational unity of mankind’, and the potential for any of us to furnish criticisms of public policy, it is not clear what institutional means currently exist for this to enable this to take place. Second, Popper has stressed the conjectural character of even our best theories. However, at any point, some theories will have fared better in the face of criticism than others, and they may give us important information about constraints on our actions. At the same time, as ordinary citizens we may not be in a good position to understand the theories in question, let alone appraise the state of the specialised discussion of them. There is, it is suggested, a case for thinking of ways to institutionally entrench such fallible theories, especially in the current setting in which social media play an important role

According to the doctrines of great monotheistic religions, God will fairly judge on the deeds and intentions of all people on the Day of Judgment in hereafter. He will reckon all deeds, even the tiniest ones, will do justice to everyone according to their acts, and will condemn some sinners to eternal punishment. There seems to be at least two important problems about this religious doctrine: First, the eternal punishment is inconsistent with divine justice; second, eternal punishment is inconsistent with divine love. Theologians and thinkers such as Anselm and Jonathan Edwards have tried to prove the consistency of eternal punishment with divine justice. Aquinas has also provided some arguments for the consistency of divine love with eternal punishment. There have also been endeavors in Islamic tradition to argue that the eternal punishment is consistent with divine justice; among the main and recent examples is Motahhari’s view in his book "Adl-e Elahi" (Divine Justice). Examining and comparing the main arguments presented against the two mentioned problems, the present paper argues that all of these arguments fail to provide justified moral answers to the problems, though they differ in terms of their merits and demerits.

One of the four real attributes of the Necessary Being is Divine Knowledge, which enjoys special significance. Reviewing various views in defining knowledge and giving the rational arguments as well as narrated proofs to establish divine knowledge, the present paper deals in detail with the objects and the how of divine knowledge. Among different things that are the objects of divine knowledge, that which is most controversial are material creatures and their ontological states. The how of divine knowledge of His creatures is different before creation, after creation, and after annihilation? Most of objections are in relation to His knowledge of creatures and their ontological states prior to their appearance, which the paper’s discussion on it is comprehensive.

Since the word "treasuries" has been mentioned in the Koran and Hadiths, scholars of the interpretation of the Koran and Hadiths as well as theologians, philosophers and Gnostics have discussed it from several aspects. In this paper, we first interpret it literally, formulating the scholars' opinions about it; then, we develop the discussion to the "key of treasury" and "treasurers"; finally, to make clear the philosophical-theological perspective in addition to the interpretation of the issue. We attempt to discuss the points mentioned among the scholars' utterances.