ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Principles of Demonstration and the State of Nous: Knowledge of universals in Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics II,19
Accept: After constructing a demonstrative system, Aristotle concludes Posterior Analytics by asking question about premises of demonstration based on principles that are primitive, necessary and can’t be proved by demonstration itself. These principles are propositions about universal concepts and are necessary, since the predicate arises from subject, the universal concept. Therefore, knowing these first principle is the same as knowing the universals. Anyway how they become known and what is the developed state of knowledge of them? In other words, what is the ground that the whole demonstration system stands on it? To answer these questions, Aristotle describes the way the soul proceeds to know universals and calls the highest degree of process of knowing “Nous”, the state of knowing the first principles. But Aristotle’s phrases in this text are so ambiguous that leads to different interpretations. This paper first considers the context of the problem in Aristotle’s epistemology and then criticizes these interpretations, so it becomes clear that the validity of each interpretation is tied to the problem of “nous poietikos” or the so-called “active intellect”. But the analysis of Aristotle’s account of active intellect shows us the notable similarities of these interpretations, not their fundamental contrasts
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67739_eeac195af68e1c30588514330ca2090f.pdf
2017-12-22
1
22
10.22059/jop.2018.259956.1006368
Aristotle
Nous
Intuitionist interpretation
Explanationist interpretation
Zeinab
Ansary Najafabady
z_ansari_ph@ut.ac.ir
1
department of philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Human Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Seyed Mohammadreza
Hosseini Beheshti
drmrhosseini@yahoo.com
2
Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Human Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
AUTHOR
ارسطو (1390)، منطق ارسطو، برگردان میرشمسالدین ادیبسلطانی، تهران: موسسۀ انتشاراتی نگاه.
1
ارسطو (1393)، دربارۀ نفس، برگردان علیمراد داوودی، تهران: موسسۀ انتشارات حکمت.
2
خوانساری، محمّد (۱۳۸۸)، منطق صوری، جلد دوم، تهران: آگاه.
3
آوبنک، پ. (1391)، اصل، در فرهنگنامۀ تاریخی مفاهیم فلسفه، یوآخیم ریتر، کارلفرید گروندر، گتفرید گابریل، جلد اول، تهران: سازمان مطالعه و تدوین کتب علوم انسانی دانشگاهها (سمت).
4
Aristotle, H. P. Cooke, Hugh Tredennick (1938), Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, The Loeb classical Library, Harvard University Press.
5
Aristotle, Hugh Tredennick,E. S. Forster (1960), Posterior Analytics, Topica, The Loeb classical Library,Harvard University Press.
6
Aristotle, Lesley Brown (2004), The Nicomachean Ethics, Oxford University Press.
7
Aristotle, Jonathan Barnes (2002), Aristotle: Posterior Analytics, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
8
Biondi, Paolo C., (2004), Aristotle: Posterior Analytics II.19, Introduction, Greek Text, Translation, and Commentary. Accompanied by a Critical Analysis, Saint-Nicolas, QC: Les Presses de l'Université Laval.
9
Bolton, Robert. (2014), Intuition in Aristotle, In Rational Intuition: Philosophical Roots, Scientific Investigations. Edited by Lisa M. Osbeck and Barbara S. Held. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
10
Bronstein, David. (2016), Aristotle on Knowledge and Learning, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
11
Groarke, Louis (2009), An Aristotelian Account of Induction, Creating Something from Nothing, McGill-Queen’s University Press.
12
Hauser, Christopher (2017), Aristotle’s Epistemology of Essence, Dialectic and Analytics, Providence College.
13
Hickes, R. D., (1907), Aristotle De Anima, with Translation, Introduction and Notes, Cambridge University Press, London.
14
Irwin, Terence (1988), Aristotle's first principles, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
15
Ross, W. D. (1957), Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics, A Revised Text with Introduction and Commentary, Oxford University Press.
16
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Structural Unity between Time and the Transcendental Ego in Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason.
Abstract: In this paper, the fundamental role of time in the possibility of the synthesis of the two sides of synthetic a priori judgment or pure synthesis, i.e. the pure intuition and the pure concept, will be discussed, in order to reveal the structural unity between them based on their common ground. The possibility of the pure synthesis indicates the possibility of unifying time as the pure comprehensive intuition on the one hand and pure Ego as the transcendental unity of apperception on the other. The unity of apperception on its part is the ground of the unity of all concepts of the understanding. The transcendental imagination unifies pure intuition and pure concept, thus the sought structural unity appears in the structure of the transcendental imagination as the mediation between receptivity of the intuition and spontaneity of the understanding. We attempt in this paper to disclose the possibility of this mediation and thus – with reference to Heidegger’s interpretation of the Kantian transcendental imagination - the original and unspoken structural unity between time and the transcendental Ego on the basis of the fundamental structure of pure intuition of time as self-affection or spontaneous receptivity. According to this structure, Kant’s transcendental philosophy can be founded on the subjectivity of finite subject
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67741_bcff3c3fac4b8b462b4a26ba2a0decc3.pdf
2017-12-22
23
43
10.22059/jop.2018.225507.1006262
time
pure intuition
spontaneity
receptivity
transcendental imagination
transcendental Ego
Ahmad
Rajabi
rajabi_ahmad2@yahoo.de
1
Phd tehran university
LEAD_AUTHOR
- Aristoteles (1995), Physik, übersetzt von Hans Günter Zekl, Hamburg: Felix Meiner Verlag
1
- Banham, Gary(2006), Kant’s Transcendental Imagination, New York: Palgrave MacMillan
2
- Heidegger, Martin (2002), Grundbegriffe der aristotelischen Philosophie, Sommersemester 1924, Gesamtausgabe 18, hrsg. von Mark Michalski, Frankfurt a. M.: Vittorio Klostermann
3
- Heidegger, Martin (1965), Kant und das Problem der Metaphysik, erste Auflage 1929, 3. unveränderte Auflage, Frankfurt a. M.: Vittorio Klostermann
4
- Heidegger, Martin (2001), Sein und Zeit, erste Auflage 1927, Tübingen: Max Nimeyer
5
- Kant, Immanuel: Kritik der reinen Vernunft, Hrsg. Wilhelm Weischedel, Frankfurt .a M 1974
6
- Kant, Immaneul (2001), Prolegomena zu einer jeden künftigen Metaphysik, Hrsg. Konstantin Pollok, Hamburg: Suhrkamp
7
- Mohr, Georg (1998), “Transzendentale Ästhetik”, Klassiker Auslegen, Kritik der reinen Vernunft, hrsg. Georg Mohr und Markus Wilaschek, Berlin: Akademie Verlag
8
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
An analysis of the ratio of modernity to the genesis of the uneventful world from the point of view of Heidegger's philosophy
Abstract: The modern times approach is the same as Aristotle has written in the fourth book of physics: ((The 'now' is the link of time)). While Heidegger believes this understanding of time, puts the being as something present at hand for Manipulation, because the being is in now Discrete from the past and the future, and it seems that its totality is available for to be dominated. As a result of this process being is not able to revealing and uneventful world is embodied. However, in Heidegger's philosophy, something must have happened before thinking and acting in a genuine and meaningful way. But, Heidegger's suggestion for to get out of this problematic situation (uneventful world), is not the prescription of a struggle, but the abandonment of things to oneself as they are. Heidegger expresses this abandonment with the term "Gelassenheit". Some researchers from Heidegger's term "Gelassenheit" concluded some kind of inaction and numbness. However, in the present study, we will show that "Gelassenheit" is not space neutral and inaction arena, But also is itself involves activism, But at the time it belongs, The present time that is realm of past and future confluence, And Heidegger calls it the name "genuine moment", a determined moment that should be expected, And when it happened, identified the hidden event in it. The term "Gelassenheit" suggests a delayed process and thus, in the face of the objectification process in modernity.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67742_9319d5d7a614e723b008b40478015901.pdf
2017-12-22
45
60
10.22059/jop.2018.248701.1006324
Modernity
Being
event
Gelassenhei
Ali
Rasouli
rasoli@ut.ac.ir
1
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Mahdi
Hoseinzadeh
ma.hoseinzadeh@ut.ac.ir
2
Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Tehran
AUTHOR
اباذری، یوسف (1377)، خردِ جامعهشناسی، تهران: نشر طرح نو.
1
Aristotle. (2004), Physics, Translated by R. P. Hardie and R. K. Gaye, www.Abika.com.
2
Badiou, Alain. (2001), On Evil: An Interview With Alain Badiou, Translated by Christoph Cox, Molly Whalen, http://www.lacan.com.
3
Badiou, Alain. (2005), The Subject of Art, Translated by Lydia Kerr, http://www.lacan.com.
4
Badiou, Alain. (2014), on Ukraine, Egypt and finitude, Translated by David Broder, https://www.versobooks.com.
5
Baudrillard, Jean. (1998), The Consumer Society: Myths and Structures, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
6
Bowler, Michael J. (2008), Heidegger and Aristotle: Philosophy as Praxis, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
7
Campbell, Scott M. (2012), The Early Heidegger's Philosophy of Life: Facticity, Being, and Language, New York: Fordham University Press.
8
Campbell, Timothy C. (2011), Improper Life: Technology and Biopolitics from Heidegger to Agamben, London: Univ Of Minnesota Press.
9
Davis, Bret W. (2007), Heidegger and the Will: On the Way to Gelassenheit, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
10
Escudero, Jesús Adrián. (2015), Heidegger and the Emergence of the Question of Being, Translated by Juan Pablo Hernández Betancur, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
11
Golob, Sacha. (2014), Heidegger on Concepts, Freedom and Normativity, New York: Cambridge University Press.
12
Heidegger M. (1962), Being and time, Translated by John Macquarrie and Edward Robinson, Bodmin: Blackwell Publishers.
13
Heidegger M. (1967), Sein und Zeit, Tübingen: Max Niemeyer Verlag.
14
Heidegger M. (1968), What is called thinking?, Translated by Fred D. Wieck and J. Glenn Gray, New York: Harper & Row Publishers.
15
Heidegger M. (1977), The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays, Translated by William Lovitt, New York: Garland Publishing.
16
Heidegger M. (1988), The Basic Problems of Phenomenology, Translated by Albert Hofstadter, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
17
Heidegger M. (2001), Poetry, Language, Thought, Translated by Albert Hofstadter, New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
18
Heidegger M. (2012), Contributions to Philosophy, Translated by Richard Rojcewicz and Daniela Vallega-Neu, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
19
Hemming, Laurence Paul. (2013), Heidegger and Marx: A Productive Dialogue over the Language of Humanism, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
20
Massey, Heath. (2015), The Origin of Time: Heidegger and Bergson, New York: State University of New York Press.
21
Mitchell, Andrew J. (2015), The Fourfold: Reading the Late Heidegger, Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
22
Ó Murchadha, Felix. (2013), The Time of Revolution: Kairos and Chronos in Heidegger, New York: Bloomsbury Academic.
23
Sheehan, Thomas. (2015), Making Sense of Heidegger: A Paradigm Shift, London: Rowman & Littlefield International.
24
Smith.B. (1991), Heidegger, Technology and Postmodernity, Michigan: university of Michigan.
25
Taminiaux, Jacques. (1991), Heidegger and the project of fundamental ontology, Translated by Michael Gendre, New York: State University of New York Press.
26
Vaden, T. (2014), Heidegger, Žižek and Revolution, Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.
27
Watts, Michael. (2011), The Philosophy of Heidegger, Durham: Acumen Publishing Limited.
28
Wrathall, Mark A. (2010), Heidegger and Unconcealment: Truth, Language, and History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29
Ziarek, Krzysztof. (2013), Language after Heidegger, Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30
Žižek, Slavoj. (2008), Violence: Big Ideas/Small Books, New York: Picador.
31
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
A Criticism of Theories of Meaning in Analytic Philosophy of Art
Variations of different theories in analytic philosophy of art have caused long debates about literary interpretation. Intentionalism and anti-intentionalism are the two main avenues and theorists have developed different positions, which lean towards each of the two. Along with the arguments for or against the link between the authorial intentions and the literary text, a question could be asked of different parties of the debate, that is, how the meaning of a piece of literature is constituted. In other words, how the meaning of a poem or a novel takes its shape? In this regard, I think, concentrating on the philosophy of language and theories of meaning would be much helpful. It seems to me that for answering this question one needs to withdraw from a Gricean theory of meaning. I argue that neither intentionalists nor anti-intentionalist, do not answer this question deftly. I will try to investigate some answers given to this question by two moderate intentionalists, Robert Stecker and Paisley Livingston, in order to show in which respects their answers are problematic. At last, I argue that Relevance Theory, developed by Deirdre Wilson and Dan Sperber, could answer this question in a way that dissolves some of the hard cases in the philosophy of interpretation.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67744_5ae1522a7205c846062737278d9c1dfd.pdf
2017-12-22
61
83
10.22059/jop.2018.239378.1006298
Interpretation
the theory of meaning
Relevance theory
Implication
Context
intention
Mehdi
Shams
mehdi.shams1895@gmail.com
1
PhD candidate, Department of philosophy, Faculty of literature and human sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
AUTHOR
mohammad
meshkat
mohammad.meshkat@yahoo.com
2
Associate Professor of philosophy, Department of philosophy, Faculty of literature and human sciences, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
LEAD_AUTHOR
بارت، رولان. (1388)، "مرگ مولف "چاپ شده در «به سوی پسامدرن: پساساختارگرایی در مطالعات ادبی»، گردآوری و ترجمۀ پیام یزدانجو، چاپ دوم، تهران، نشر مرکز .
1
Beardsley, M. C, (1992), The Authority of the Text 2, Intention Interpretation, 24, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
2
Davies, S. (2006), Authors' intentions, literary interpretation, and literary value, The British Journal of Aesthetics, 46(3), 223-247.
3
Grice, H. P. (1957), Meaning, The philosophical review, 377-388.
4
Hirsch, E. D, (1967), Validity in interpretation (Vol. 260), New Haven: Yale University Press.
5
Lamarque, P, (1992), Appreciation and Literary Interpretation, In M. Krausz (ed.), Is There a Single Right Interpretation?
6
Livingston, P, (1996), Arguing over intentions. Revue internationale de philosophie, 50 (4), 615-633.
7
Livingston, P, (2005). Art and intention: A philosophical study. Oxford: Oxford University Press on Demand.
8
Nathan, Daniel O, (2005), A paradox in intentionalism, The British Journal of Aesthetics 45, no. 1: 32-48.
9
Nehamas, A. (2001). Writer, text, work, author, CONTRIBUTIONS IN PHILOSOPHY, 83, 95-116.
10
Sperber, D, & Wilson, D, (1986), Relevance: communication and cognition, 2nd edition. Oxford: Blackwell.
11
Sperber, D, & Wilson, D, (2002), Relevance theory, Handbook of pragmatics, Oxford: Blackwell.
12
Stecker, R, (2008), Interpretation and construction: Art, speech, and the law, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
13
Stecker, R, (2010), Aesthetics and the philosophy of art: An introduction, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
14
Stecker, R. (1993), The role of intention and convention in interpreting artworks, The Southern journal of philosophy, 31(4), 471-489.
15
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
Analyzing the Highest and Worst Moral Attributes from the Perspective of Aristotle, Aquinas, and Khajeh Nasir-al-Din Tusi.
Aristotle, Aquinas, and Khajeh Nasir al-Din Tusi are representatives of the three periods and the worlds of thought, and all of them have played an important role in establishing or consolidating their ethical attitudes. In this essay, it was attempted to identify and analyze the highest virtues and the worst ethical vices from the perspective of each of these three wise and expert philosophers. For Aristotle, the highest virtue is justice and greed and the worst vice is oppression to friends. For Aquinas considers Caritas as the highest virtue of and the worst vice is the disappointment. Khajeh Naseer regards grace as the supreme ethical attribute and stinging as the worst, although envy and anger can also be considered as the worst vice in a rather vague interpretation. Comparing the results of the work, firstly, suggests that the views of Khajeh Nasir and Aquinas are close to each other, and secondly, Aristotle's has more sophisticated view to ethics and ethical virtues than two other thinkers.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67745_0b0379dc9a97a4b59272b31e78d0c324.pdf
2017-12-22
85
103
10.22059/jop.2018.67745
Aristotle
Aquinas
Khajeh Nasir
Virtue
vice
masoud
sadeghi
masoud.sadeghi@kums.ac.ir
1
abc
LEAD_AUTHOR
علی بن بیطالب(ع) (1376) تمام نهجالبلاغه، مشهد: نشر موسسه الامامالزمان(عج).
1
کشفی، جعفر بن ابی اسحاق(1381) تحفهالملوک: گفتارهایی درباره حکمت سیاسی، جلد 2، بکوشش عبدالوهاب فراتی، قم:بوستان کتاب.
2
مسکویه، ابوعلی (1413ق) تهذیب الاخلاق و تطهیر الاعراق، تحقیق و شرح ابن الخطیب، قاهره: مکتبة الثقافه الدینیه.
3
نصیرالدین طوسی،محمد بن محمد (1413 ه.ق) اخلاق ناصری، تهران: علمیه اسلامیه.
4
Aristotle (2004) Nicomachean Ethics, translated and edited by Roger Crisp, Cambridge: Cambridge University press.
5
_______ (2015) Eudemian Ethics: Books 1-2, London: Aeterna Press.
6
Aquinas, Saint Thomas (1981) Summa Theologica. Roman Catholic Church.
7
Curran, Charles E. (1999) The Catholic Moral Tradition Today: A Synthesis, Washington: Georgetown University Press.
8
Graham, Anne (2009) Just Give Me Jesus, Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson Inc.
9
Kraut Richard (2006) The Blackwell guide to Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics. Blackwell Publishing
10
Lindberg, Carter (2008) Love: A Brief History Through Western Christianity, Oxford and Malden, MA: Blackwell.
11
Pakaluk Michael (2005) Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics: an introduction, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12
Peters, Francis Edwards (2005) The Monotheists: Jews, Christians, and Muslims in Conflict and Competition, Volume II: The Words and Will of God. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
13
Pellegrino, Edmund D. and Thomasma, David C. (1995) The Christian Virtues in Medical Practice, Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
14
Ross David (1995) Aristotle, Sixth edition, London: Routledge.
15
Ross, William David (1949) Aristotle's Prior and Posterior Analytics, ed W.D. Ross, Oxford: Clarendon Press
16
Shields, Christopher, "Aristotle", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/aristotle/>
17
Thomas P. Rausch, SJ (2015) Faith, Hope, and Charity: Benedict XVI on the Theological Virtues, New York: Paulist, Paulist Press.
18
Torrey, R. A. (2006) Gods Power in Your Life, New Kensington, Pennsylvania: Whitaker House.
19
Urmson, James O. (1991) Aristotle's Ethics, Worcester: Basil Blackwell.
20
Vasalou, Sophia (2017) The Reception of Greatness of Soul in the Arabic Tradition, Journal of Religious Ethics, 45, 4: 688–731.
21
Watson, Jim A. (2005) Race for Obedience, Xulon Press.
22
ORIGINAL_ARTICLE
The Problem of Generality of “object in general”: A Consideration on The idea of a transcendental logic
Abstract: Here, I will introduce a totality of a view about “the concept of an object in general” in the Critique of Pure Reason. In order to do so, I will articulate an article under the title of Generality of Kant’s transcendental logic since the article has presented the view adequately and in an uninterrupted way. Alongside with this articulation, I will purpose a consideration about this totality: As we will see, the fundamental characteristic of the totality of this view is to concentrate on determining the status of “transcendental logic sensu stricto” as (1) a necessarily “non-formal logic” that (2) still stays “universal”. Thus, transcendental logic can be proposed as a transcendental “universal ontology” which its subject matter is “the concept of an object in general”. based on this view, in order to set these two conditions, we must abstract transcendental logic from any relation to any level of “transcendental aesthetics in general” and “intuition in general”. The hint to this abstraction is the principle that “transcendental logic sensu stricto” can only be achieved at the level of “reason in general” and any reference to the level of “critique” of “reason in general” would already dysfunction the transcendental logic itself. Through a consideration, I will attempt to discuss this subject that to what extent the abovementioned view, with its omitting of the level of “critique of pure reason” from transcendental logic, stays loyal to “the idea of a transcendental logic” in Critique of Pure Reason.
https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_67746_e46f430734b74922eaa3991a47c04e82.pdf
2017-12-22
105
128
10.22059/jop.2018.249252.1006326
transcendental logic
generality
Ontology
critique of pure reason
majid
moradi
majidsede@gmail.com
1
theran
LEAD_AUTHOR
Seyyed Hamid
Talebzadeh
talebzade@ut.ac.ir
2
Associate Professor,University of Tehran
AUTHOR
کانت، ایمانوئل (1390)، سنجش خرد ناب، ترجمۀ میرشمسالدین ادیبسلطانی، چاپ چهارم، تهران: امیرکبیر.
1
Husserl, Edmund (1982). Cartesian Meditations: An Introduction to Phenomenology, translated by Dorian Cairns, seventh impression, The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
2
ــــــــــــــــــــــــ (1983). Ideas pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology (First Book), translated by Fred Kersten, Dordrecht: Kluwer.
3
Kant, Immanuel (1938). Kant's gesammelte Schriften, Herausgegeben von der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Vols. 21. Walter de Gruyter & Co, Berlin und Leipzig.
4
ـــــــــــــــــــــ (1998). Critique of Pure Reason, translated and edited by Paul Guyer and Allen Wood, Cambridge University Press.
5
Tolly, C. 2011. Kant on the Generality of Logic. forthcoming, Proceedings of the 11th International Kant Kongress. Berlin: de Gruyter.
6
ــــــــــــــــــــ (2012). The Generality of Kant’s Transcendental Logic. Journal of the History of Philosophy 50:417-446.
7
ــــــــــــــــــــ (2013). The non-conceptuality of the content of intuitions: a new approach. Kantian Review 18: 107-136.
8