ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Kant, Foucault and the Critical Tradition
The eighteenth century enlightenment is one of the most important foundations of the modern culture and thecontemporary Western philosophy can be regarded as a dialogue between the Enlightenment and its critics. Although the roots of the Enlightenment can be traced to the Late Middle Ages and even before, but it is in Kant’s “What is Enlightenment?” (and implicitly in his critical trilogy and political works) that the Enlightenment and the modern situation are formulated philosophically. Foucault , French postmodern philosopher, has written three essays on kant's “What is Enlightenment?” They are as follows: “What is Critique?” (1978), “Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution” (1983), and “What is Enlightenment?” (1984). These works indicate a considerable shift in his approach to the Enlightenment. This essay tries to explain this shift by analyzing and comparing Kant’s and Foucault’s views of the Enlightenment. For Foucault, the Enlightenment is not a historical period which has its own general principles but is a continuation of the critical tradition, philosophical ethos and ontology of the present and, as such, has been one of the main currents of Western philosophy from Kant until the present time.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36398_9fbdf1cb7a5c4b7e4db4fbd3e36f0af8.pdf
2013-08-23
9
26
10.22059/jop.2013.36398
Reza
Davari Ardakani
1
استاد فلسفه دانشگاه تهران -
AUTHOR
Malek
Shojaei jeshvaghani
2
دانشجوی دکتری فلسفه معاصر دانشگاه تهران
LEAD_AUTHOR
- احمدی، بابک (1373)، معمای مدرنیته، تهران: نشر مرکز.
1
- اشمیت، جیمز (1379-1380)، مشکل تحدید عقل و آزادی در دوره روشنگری، ترجمه فرهاد مشتاق، «فصلنامه نقد و نظر»، شماره 21و22. صص187-160.
2
- خاتمی، محمود (1387)، زمینه تاریخی مدرنیته، تهران: نشر علم.
3
- داوری اردکانی، رضا، (بیتا)، کانت و منورالفکری،) منتشر نشده.)
4
- سولومون ،رابرت،ک (1379)، فلسفه اروپایی، ترجمه محمدسعید حنایی کاشانی، تهران: انتشارات قصیدهسرا.
5
- کلی، مایکل (1385)، نقد و قدرت : بازآفرینی مناظره فوکو و هابرماس، ترجمه فرزان سجودی، تهران: انتشارات اختران.
6
- محمودی، سیدعلی (1384)، فلسفه سیاسی کانت، تهران: نگاه معاصر.
7
- فوکو، میشل (1378)، نقد چیست؟، ترجمه محمدسعید حنایی کاشانی، «فصلنامه ارغنون»، شماره 15، پاییز 1378، ویژه عقلانیت، تهران: موسسه مطالعات و تحقیقات فرهنگی وزارت ارشاد اسلامی، صص240-248.
8
- D’Entre’ves Maurizio Passerin,1999,”Between Nietzsche and Kant :Michel Foucault’s Reading of “What is Enlightenment” in :History of political thought.vol.XX.No.2.Summer.pp337-356.
9
- Foucault Michel , 1993, ”Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution”, trans. C. Gordon, in: Gane and Johnson. pp10-18.
10
- Foucault Michel , 1986, ”Kant on Enlightenment and Revolution”,trans. C. Gordon,in : Economy and Society. 15(1) (February 1986) ,pp 88-96
11
- Foucault Michel, 1984,” On the Genealogy of Ethics: An Overview of Work in Progress” Foucault Michel , in : Robhnow Paul ,1984,pp. 340-372.
12
- Foucault Michel ,1973,The Order Of Things: An Archaeology of The Human Sceinces,New York,Tavistock.
13
- Foucault Michel ,1996,”What Is Critique?” ,in: Schmidt James,1996.pp382-98.
14
- Gane Mike and Johnson Terry,1993, Foucault’s New Domains,Routledge university press.
15
- Kant Immanuel ,1989,”An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?” in: Reiss H ,1989,Kant’s Political Writing,Cambridge,. pp54-60.
16
Schmit James,1996,What is Enlightenment?:Eighteenth-century Answers and Twentieth-century Questions,University of California Press
17
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Will and Action in Human Being
Human free acts have always been one of most difficult but important issues in philosophical debates. In this Paper, I will try to provide an interpretation of these acts and argue for human free will and freedom. To this end, I will first, disucss the distinction of necessary acts from free acts, and then will argue for the free will, and its relation to free acts and freedom. Finally, some considrations will be concluded concerning the implication of our discussion for human emotion.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36399_35006276c5ec57535bed2bf6226b3f3f.pdf
2013-08-23
27
45
10.22059/jop.2013.36399
will
free will
Freedom
action
necessity
Mahmoud
Khatami
24229847
1
استاد دانشگاه تهران
LEAD_AUTHOR
- الفارابی، أبونصر (1995)، آراءأهل المدینة الفاضلة ومضاداتها، تقدیم علی بوملحم، بیروت: دارالمکتبةالهلال.
1
- الفارابی، أبونصر (1964)،السیاسة المدنیة، تحقیق فوزی النجار، بیروت: المطبعة الکاثولوکیة.
2
- الفارابی، أبونصر (1907)،المسائل الفلسفیة والأجوبةعنها، مطبعة السعادة.
3
- ابنسینا(1404)، کتاب الالهیات من الشفاء قم: مکتبة المرعشی.
4
- ابنسینا(1404)، التعلیقات، تحقیق عبدالرحمن بدوی، قم: مکتب الاعلام الاسلامی.
5
- ملاصدرا شیرازی(1981)، الاسفارالاربعة، بیروت: دار احیاء التراث العربی.
6
- میرداماد(1374)، القبسات، تصحیح مهدی محقق و همکاران، تهران: دانشگاه تهران.
7
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Assessment of Schopenhauer’s Criticism of Kant’s Analysis of Causality
Arthur Schopenhauer, in Four Aspects Root of the Principle of Sufficient Reason, criticized Kant’s interpretation of causality, which is written in the Second Analogy contained in the section of Principles of Pure Understanding. These criticisms express themselves along three main axes. By considering these criticisms, this article seeks to defend Kant’s account and to show that Schopenhauer didn’t understand properly the arguments that Kant has given. In this article, on the one hand, Kant’s position, in contrast with Schopenhauer’s view, is confirmed, but on the other hand, it is argued that Kant distorted the genuine meaning of causality and meant causality so that it was not consistent with the main aim that philosophers have taken at establishing causality, hence the criticism of this article of Kant’s explanation of causality.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36400_8d5ad2650d41173f02a20f96b348b231.pdf
2013-08-23
47
66
10.22059/jop.2013.36400
Schopenhauer
Kant
causality
sufficient reason
Perception
Seyyed Hamid
Talebzadeh
talebzade@ut.ac.ir
1
استاد دانشگاه تهران
LEAD_AUTHOR
- Schopenhauer, Arthur, The word as Will Representation, Volumei, 1969, Dover Publication, Inc, New York.
1
- Kant, Immanuel, Critique of Pure Reason, 1964, MaCMILLAN co LTD.
2
- Schopenhauer, Arthur, on The Fourfold Root of The Principle of Sufficient Reason, 1974, Open Covert Publishing Company.
3
- Guyer, Paul, The Cambridge Companion of Schopenhauer, 1999, Cambridge university Press.
4
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A comparative of Aesthetics in Plato,
And Descartes’ Philosophy
Descartes' absolutist rationalism makes a gap between human perception and the physical word. As a result, there will be a separation between his rational approach to the word and that of sensory-emotional. Now, the problem is that whether there is any place for beauty and aestheticism in the Cartesian rationalism. In this paper, we will deal with sense and sensory perception in Descartes rationalism, the place of aestheticism in his Philosophical system and the question that whether it is possible to have a reliable knowledge of beauty on such a basis.
The basis of Cartesian philosophy is on “I think therefore I am” and subjectivism, as a result of this principle, is an absolutely new concept at the center of his philosophical system. This is a viewpoint in cognitive, ethical, pragmatic, aesthetic and artistic areas in which the basis is on subject, the doer of an ethical act, a judge of aestheticism and the creator of an artistic creation. Hence, the question is: what is the relations between aestheticism and subjectivism as one of the essential and important issues in western philosophy 'in the modern era'.
After briefly going through the classical aestheticism of Plato and beauty in the context of Descartes’ subjectivism, this paper adopts a comparative approach to argue that Descartes, as the father of modern philosophy, would revolutionize the philosophy of art and aestheticism, influenced by Plato, by a different interpretation of existence, reality and knowledge. Based on this view, we can recognize him as the founder of modern philosophy and a estheticism.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36401_c4ce6b3cbff8c518e30b8081cb864ef9.pdf
2013-08-23
67
83
10.22059/jop.2013.36401
Perception
Descartes aestheticism
platonic aestheticism
subjectivism
Simin
Esfandiari
1
استادیار دانشگاه رازی کرمانشاه
LEAD_AUTHOR
- افلاطون، (1361)، پنج رساله، ترجمه محمود صناعی، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
1
- بووی، اندرو(1385)،زیباییشناسی و ذهنیت از کانت تا نیچه، فریبرز مجیدی، تهران: فرهنگستان هنر.
2
- خاتمی،محمود(1381)، فلسفه ذهن، تهران: جهاد دانشگاهی دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه تهران.
3
- دکارت، رنه (1371)، اصول فلسفه، ترجمه منوچهر صانعی،تهران: انتشارات الهدی.
4
- دکارت، رنه (1384)، اعتراضات و پاسخها، ترجمه و توضیح از علی محمد افضلی، تهران: شرکت انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی.
5
- دکارت، رنه (1384)، تأملات در فلسفه اولی، ترجمه دکتر احمد احمدی، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
6
- دیرکس، هانس(1380)، انسانشناسی فلسفی، ترجمه دکتر محمدرضا بهشتی، تهران: انتشارات هرمس.
7
- کاپلستن، فردریک (1362)، تاریخ فلسفه، ترجمه دکتر سید جلالالدین مجتبوی، تهران: انتشارات علمی و فرهنگی، جلد اول.
8
- Cottingham. (1991): The Phiosophical Writings of Writing of Descartes. vol.III. Oxford : Clarendon press
9
- E.S Haldane and G. T. R. Ross. (1967): The philosophical Works of Descartes: Cambridge University
10
- Kant. Immanuel. (1997): Critique of pure Reaso: Cambridge University
11
- Kim, Atkins.)2005:( Self and Subjectivity. Black well publishing: Cambridge University
12
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Consciousness from the Prospect of
Representational Theory of Mind
One of the most important questions in epistemology is the nonphysical realities, like phenomenal consciousness. The main claim of physicalism is real explanations of events and properties are only physical explanations and representationalists are agree too. Thus these realities can explained by the rule of biases of physical and objective events.On the other hand , phenomenalists maintain that conscious experiences and aspect of subjectivity of phenomenal consciousness are not. In this article I attempt formulated the problem of phenomenal consciousness based on the Perspectival Subjectivity and next proposed the solutions of theories of representation of mind then declare objections on the theories of representation of mind. There is a question as can be the theory of representation of mind the frame for causal explanation of the problems of phenomenal consciousness?
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36402_8a9030c42a28c9241e97f2c506104b54.pdf
2013-08-23
85
104
10.22059/jop.2013.36402
phenomenal consciousness
theory of representation of mind
perspectival subjectivity
theory of representationalism
higher order theory
contractive naturalism
Seyyed Mohammad
Hosseini
1
کارشناس ارشد فلسفه علم، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد علوم و تحقیقات تهران
AUTHOR
Kazeme
Badee
2
- دانشیار گروه مهندسی کامپیوتر دانشکده فنی دانشگاه تهران
AUTHOR
- کرافت، ایان ریونر(1387)، یک راهنمای مقدماتی به فلسفه ذهن، ترجمه حسین شیخ رضایی، انتشارات صراط.
1
- مسلین، کیت(1388)، درآمدی به فلسفه ذهن، ترجمه مهدی ذاکری، قم: پژوهشگاه علوم و فرهنگ اسلامی.
2
- Block, Ned (1990), “Reverted Earth”, in Consciousness, Function, and Representation Collected Papers,MIT Press (PP: 533-570).
3
- _______ (1995), “Concepts of Consciousness”, in Philosophy of mind: classical and contemporary readings, David J. Chalmer(Ed.), Oxford University Press, 2002.
4
- Carruthers, Peter (2000), Phenomenal Consciousness A naturalistic theory, Cambridge University Press.
5
- __________(2003) , “Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, zalta(Ed), URL= <http://www.plato.stanford.edu/ entries/consciousness-higher/>
6
- __________(2004), “HOP over FOR, HOT theory”,in Higher-Order Theories of Consciousness An Anthology, Rocco J. Gennaro(ed), John Benjamins Publishing Company.
7
- Chalmers, D(1996) The Conscious Mind-In Search of a Theory of Consciousness Experience, Oxford University Press.
8
- ___________(1995), “Facing up to the problem of consciousness”, in Philosophy of Mind A Guide and Anthology, John Heil(Ed), Oxford University Press.
9
- _______(2006b), “The Representational Character of Experience.” In B. Leiter (ed), The Future for Philosophy, Oxford University Press.
10
- Cummins, Robert (1991), Meaning and Mental Representation, MIT Press.
11
- Dretske, Fred (1995), Naturalizing the Mind, MIT Press.
12
- Flanagan, Owen (1992), Consciousness Reconsidered,MIT press, 1992.
13
- Harman, Gilbert (1990),”The intrinsic quality of experience”, ”, in Philosophy of Mind A Guide and Anthology, John Heil(Ed)(PP: 641-656)
14
- Levine, Joseph (1983), “Materialism and Qualia: The Explanatory Gap,” Pacific Philo-sophical Quarterly (PP: 354–61).
15
- Lycan, William (1987), consciousness, Bradford Books.
16
- _________(1996), Consciousness and Experience, The MIT Press.
17
- __________(2007), “Representational Theories of Consciousness”, in SEP site. URL= <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-representational>,
18
- Millikan, R.,(1984), Language, Thought, and Other Biological Categories, MIT Press.
19
- Nagel, Thomas (1974), "What Is It Like to Be a Bat?",Philosophical Review 83: (PP:435-450).
20
- Peacocke, Chirs (1983), sense and content,Oxford university press.
21
- Pitt,David(2004),“Mental Representation, zalta(ed),in URL=<http://plato. stanford. edu/entries/ mental- representation/>.
22
- Rosenthal ,David (1993), "Multiple Drafts and Higher-Order Thoughts",in Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, LIII, 4 (PP: 911-918).
23
- ________ (2004), “Varieties of higher-order theory”, in Gennaro R.j(ed.), 2004.
24
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Relation between Epistemological Behaviorism and the Rejection of Epistemological pluralism in Davidson’s Eyes
Themajor problem of the present article is to investigate relation betweenepistemological behaviorism and epistemological pluralism or relativism. Can webelieve in epistemological behaviorism and set aside representationalism andthe same time we reject relativism and believe that the concept of truth playsthe key role in our understanding of the world and of the mind of agents. Inthis article, Davidson’s positive answer to this problem is considered and hiscritical attitude to Rorty is explained
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36403_8e56fedb10bf92256fd76df0d1be32b3.pdf
2013-08-23
105
124
10.22059/jop.2013.36403
behaviorism
truth
epistemological pluralism
language and thought
radical interpretation
Saideh
Kokab
skowkab@yahoo.com
1
استادیار دانشگاه تهران
LEAD_AUTHOR
- Davidson, Donald (1984), Inquiries into Truth and interpretation, The collection containing some essays : Oxford University Press.
1
- Davidson, Donald (2000), " Truth Rehabilitated ", in Rorty and His Critics, ed. By Robert B. Brandom, Basil Blackwell.
2
- Lepore, Ernest (2001), " Donald Davidson ", in A Companion To Analytic Philosophy, ed. By A.P.Martinich and David Sosa, Blackwell Publishing.
3
- Rorty, Richard, (1991), Consequences of pragmatism, University of Minnesota press, First Published 1982.
4
- Rorty, Richard, (1998), Truth and Progress, Cambridge University Press.
5
- Rorty, Richard, (2000), " Universality and Truth" in Rorty and His Critics, ed. by Robert B. Brandom, Basil Blackwell.
6
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Dangers of Altruism: An Explanation and Analysis
of the Principle of Maximization of the Good in Normative Ethics and John Rawls’s Criticisms on It
This paper, in its first part, analyzes the status and history of the principle of “maximization of the good” and the different meanings of “maximization” and “good.” After explaining and analyzing this principle and its different interpretations, in the first part, this paper, in its second part, categorizes Rawls’s criticisms on it, step by step, by extracting and mentioning their premises. It should be noted that, prior to Rawls, similar objections to the principle of “maximization of the good” had already been raised by David Ross, Brian Barry and Nicholas Rescher. Rawls was the first person who provide a systematic and comprehensive alternative to this principle as well as coherent and systematic criticisms on it. However, most works on this topic – esp. Persian works – have a very important defect: They do not distinguish Rawls’s different (and sometimes parallel) criticisms. This paper, distinguishes Rawls’s criticism. Then, it shows that: 1. Rawls’s criticism on “total good/utility” is different from his criticism on “average good/utility,” and 2. Rawls uses two different strategies for criticizing the principle of “maximization of the good” which one of them is totally independent of his positive theory (justice as fairness) and the other one is dependent on it.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_36404_8b01204b90c158608d5b01199c50e644.pdf
2013-08-23
125
144
10.22059/jop.2013.36404
the principle of “maximization of the good
” teleology
right
liberty
rawls
Shirzad
Peik Herfeh
1
استادیار فلسفه دانشگاه بینالمللی امام خمینی
AUTHOR
- Barcalow, E. (1998). Moral Philosophy. London: Wadsworth.
1
- Bentham, J. (1907). Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
2
- Driver, J. (2012). Consequentialism. London: Routledge.
3
- Frankena, W. K. (1963). Ethics. New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
4
- Freeman, S. (1994). “Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Priority of Right.” Philosophy & Public Affairs. 23 (4): 313-49.
5
- –––––––––. (2007). Rawls. London: Routledge.
6
- Gordon, S. (1980). Welfare, Justice and Freedom. New York: Columbia University Press.
7
- Hart, H. L. A. (2012/1961). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8
- Hruschka, J. (1991). “The Greatest Happiness Principle and Other Early German Anticipations of Utilitarian Theory.” Utilitas 3: 165-77.
9
- Hume, D. (2006/1751). An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
10
- ––––––––. (2011/1740). A Treatise of Human Nature. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
11
- Kymlika, W. (1991). “The Social Contract Tradition.” in Peter Singer (ed.). A Companion to Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell. 186-94.
12
- Lucas, J. R. (1985/1966). The Principles of Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
13
- Mill, J. S. (2001/1863). Utilitarianism. Kitchener: Batoche Books.
14
- Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State, and Utopia. New York: Basic Books.
15
- Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
16
- Raphael, D. D. (1969). The British Moralists. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17
- Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
18
- –––––––. (1985). “Justice as Fairness: Political not Metaphysical.” Philosophy and Public Affairs. 14: 223-51
19
- –––––––. (1987). “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies. 7: 1-27.
20
- Scheffler, S. (1982). “Ethics, Personal Identity, and Ideals of the Person.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy. 12: 229-64.
21
- ––––––––––. (2003). “Rawls and Utilitarianism.” in Samuel Freeman (ed.). The Cambridge Companion to Rawls. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 426-59.
22
- Sidgwick, H. (1981/1874). The Methods of Ethics. Indianapolis: Hackett.
23
- Smith, P. (2008). Moral and Political Philosophy. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24
- Stern, R. (1992). “The Relation between Moral Theory and Metaphysics.” Proceedings of the Aristotelian Study. 92: 143-59.
25
- Waldron, J. (1988). The Right to Private Property. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26