University of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11296FAJournal Article19700101Avicenna, the well-known physician and scientist, can be regarded as the most prominent of Islamic philosophers. Despite the fact that he lived in the Medieval era, he did not follow the Medieval line of thought. He was rather like Renaissance thinkers in opposing any sort of narrow-minded dogmatism and blind imitation of the ancients as well as in relying on reason and experiment as the only touchstone of truth.
Open-minded as Avicenna was, he could look well ahead of his time, and never rejected a belief before he found conclusive evidence in its refutation and meanwhile regarded it as possible. That is why he considered the intuitive findings of mystics and the miracles of saints as logically possible and in some of his works sought to provide philosophical justifications for them. This attempt gave some the chance to attribute a kind of mysticism to Avicenna and to regard him as a Sufi, who believed in Existential Monism. This is a false claim. In the present article, drawing on evidence from Avicenna’s life, we will to show that he never set foot on the path of mystic quest and neither did he adopt a Sufi’s life style, but all through his life he remained a true philsopher who never lost his faith in reason and logic. Avicenna was born a philsopher and died a philosopher.Avicenna, the well-known physician and scientist, can be regarded as the most prominent of Islamic philosophers. Despite the fact that he lived in the Medieval era, he did not follow the Medieval line of thought. He was rather like Renaissance thinkers in opposing any sort of narrow-minded dogmatism and blind imitation of the ancients as well as in relying on reason and experiment as the only touchstone of truth.
Open-minded as Avicenna was, he could look well ahead of his time, and never rejected a belief before he found conclusive evidence in its refutation and meanwhile regarded it as possible. That is why he considered the intuitive findings of mystics and the miracles of saints as logically possible and in some of his works sought to provide philosophical justifications for them. This attempt gave some the chance to attribute a kind of mysticism to Avicenna and to regard him as a Sufi, who believed in Existential Monism. This is a false claim. In the present article, drawing on evidence from Avicenna’s life, we will to show that he never set foot on the path of mystic quest and neither did he adopt a Sufi’s life style, but all through his life he remained a true philsopher who never lost his faith in reason and logic. Avicenna was born a philsopher and died a philosopher.https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11296_fef1bc2f32c58676d6a89c8bdfcd727d.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11297FAJournal Article19700101Philosophy is often treated as a field of study next to science and as a result examined and evaluated by the standards and touchstones of the latter. Nevertheless, one should not forget that philosophy examines the possibility of all things including science itself, so it is wrong to oppose philosophy from a scienctific point of view.
We can resolve many of the conflicts between philosophy and science once the differences between the two are clarified. It is a mistake to think that philosophy opposes science we know that science, particularly for the past four hundred years, has always been depend ant on philosophy and could not have come into being without it. Philosophy and science are not identical but interrelated. Science needs the support of philosophy and also relies on it for its liveliness and dynamism.Philosophy is often treated as a field of study next to science and as a result examined and evaluated by the standards and touchstones of the latter. Nevertheless, one should not forget that philosophy examines the possibility of all things including science itself, so it is wrong to oppose philosophy from a scienctific point of view.
We can resolve many of the conflicts between philosophy and science once the differences between the two are clarified. It is a mistake to think that philosophy opposes science we know that science, particularly for the past four hundred years, has always been depend ant on philosophy and could not have come into being without it. Philosophy and science are not identical but interrelated. Science needs the support of philosophy and also relies on it for its liveliness and dynamism.https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11297_c8c2217806613bf23e70ebbd5fbfaad9.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11298FAJournal Article19700101Despite two thousand years of Aristotle’s dominion over philosophy, it is quite surprising that his most important concepts are still very controversial and prone to conflicting interpretations. One of the most central of these controversial concepts is the idea of the divine.
The present article gives a comprehensive picture of Aristotle’s theology, which includes his views put forth in both the exoteric and the esoteric works. The first step to take is to show the falsity of those views which have reduced Aristotle’s theology to a mere study of the principles of natural sciences, and which attributed the divine characteristic of his theology to the heretic interpretations of Moslem commentators and philosophers. The next step is to prove the central position of theology in Aristotle via examples both from Metaphysics and some exoteric works of his. The article will particularly focus on some examples from Aristotle’s On Philosophy in order to portray the delicacy and depth of divine air about his thought.Despite two thousand years of Aristotle’s dominion over philosophy, it is quite surprising that his most important concepts are still very controversial and prone to conflicting interpretations. One of the most central of these controversial concepts is the idea of the divine.
The present article gives a comprehensive picture of Aristotle’s theology, which includes his views put forth in both the exoteric and the esoteric works. The first step to take is to show the falsity of those views which have reduced Aristotle’s theology to a mere study of the principles of natural sciences, and which attributed the divine characteristic of his theology to the heretic interpretations of Moslem commentators and philosophers. The next step is to prove the central position of theology in Aristotle via examples both from Metaphysics and some exoteric works of his. The article will particularly focus on some examples from Aristotle’s On Philosophy in order to portray the delicacy and depth of divine air about his thought.https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11298_69b447e96432ef2d0a96d99e169aafdf.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11299FAJournal Article19700101Almost all logicians agree on the definition of statement as a declarative sentence which can bear truth and falsity. Every statement is essentially either true or false, which is the reason why determining the truth value of a statement is coherent with the principle of excluded middle. According to this principle, a statement can be either true or false and no third alternative is possible. This holds for all kinds of declarative statements with absolutely no exceptions.
Nevertheless, since the dawn of philosophic thought, there have been people, particularly among Greek philosophers, who came up with statements that could cast a shadow of doubt over the aforementioned principle. These alleged counter-examples are what we know today as logical and semantical paradoxes which although of a great variety, they have some more famous instances which are more complicated and perhaps more practical. To mention the most well-known of the paradoxes we can refer to the Liar paradox whose resolution can lead to the resolution of all the others since they are all of one and the same nature.
The present article focuses on the nature and origin of paradoxes as well as various attempts of logicians in resolving it.Almost all logicians agree on the definition of statement as a declarative sentence which can bear truth and falsity. Every statement is essentially either true or false, which is the reason why determining the truth value of a statement is coherent with the principle of excluded middle. According to this principle, a statement can be either true or false and no third alternative is possible. This holds for all kinds of declarative statements with absolutely no exceptions.
Nevertheless, since the dawn of philosophic thought, there have been people, particularly among Greek philosophers, who came up with statements that could cast a shadow of doubt over the aforementioned principle. These alleged counter-examples are what we know today as logical and semantical paradoxes which although of a great variety, they have some more famous instances which are more complicated and perhaps more practical. To mention the most well-known of the paradoxes we can refer to the Liar paradox whose resolution can lead to the resolution of all the others since they are all of one and the same nature.
The present article focuses on the nature and origin of paradoxes as well as various attempts of logicians in resolving it.https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11299_1e284cc9adbc3a0f73bbb93a9d706df9.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11300FAJournal Article19700101The present article studies the relation between moral wil and concepts such as responsibility, purpose, intention, moral fate, and the good in Hegel’s philosophy. It explains that Hegel is concerned about moral will as something concrete which is actualized as a stage of the absolute Spirit (or Mind), and thus includes both the objective and subjective aspects of action. Throughout this discussion we should also touch on the difference between Hegel and Kant as to the nature of moral will.The present article studies the relation between moral wil and concepts such as responsibility, purpose, intention, moral fate, and the good in Hegel’s philosophy. It explains that Hegel is concerned about moral will as something concrete which is actualized as a stage of the absolute Spirit (or Mind), and thus includes both the objective and subjective aspects of action. Throughout this discussion we should also touch on the difference between Hegel and Kant as to the nature of moral will.https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11300_3d9b68a6a206a6af6af72c22172b5a85.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11301FAJournal Article19700101In the Third Meditation of his book Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes proposes an argument which is known as “the Arbiter’s sign”. There he provides two different accounts of this argument. The present article explains the first of the two accounts, which is more famous and more imporatnt than the second.
Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God, including the argument at issue here, aroused many objections, which are of great importance. However, there is not enough room in the confinement of the present article to deal with objections and replies since this task requires a complete article of its ownIn the Third Meditation of his book Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes proposes an argument which is known as “the Arbiter’s sign”. There he provides two different accounts of this argument. The present article explains the first of the two accounts, which is more famous and more imporatnt than the second.
Descartes’ arguments for the existence of God, including the argument at issue here, aroused many objections, which are of great importance. However, there is not enough room in the confinement of the present article to deal with objections and replies since this task requires a complete article of its ownhttps://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11301_73bc99e0a7a7176a55979622c6e2c82d.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11302FAJournal Article19700101In spite of the noteworthy congruence between the early and the later Wittgenstein, the two can separately be regarded as representing two of the most influential trends in the 20th century philosophy with strong effects particularly on philosophers of science.
The present article highlights the role of language in the later philosophy of wittgenstein as well as its influence on philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. It tries to show how the faithfulness of the latter philsophers to the later Wittgenstein leads them to the path of relativism. While Kuhn would not admit the charge of relativism, Feyerabend not only accepts it but also announces himself as an epistemological anarchistIn spite of the noteworthy congruence between the early and the later Wittgenstein, the two can separately be regarded as representing two of the most influential trends in the 20th century philosophy with strong effects particularly on philosophers of science.
The present article highlights the role of language in the later philosophy of wittgenstein as well as its influence on philosophers of science such as Thomas Kuhn and Paul Feyerabend. It tries to show how the faithfulness of the latter philsophers to the later Wittgenstein leads them to the path of relativism. While Kuhn would not admit the charge of relativism, Feyerabend not only accepts it but also announces himself as an epistemological anarchisthttps://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11302_59a12239ed9d67920ff8fdf2329f8648.pdfUniversity of TehranPhilosophy2008-15532220041221--11303FAJournal Article19700101--https://jop.ut.ac.ir/article_11303_93c0e1418bae9d06d5be49f324611d9c.pdf