University of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Unpacking and Explaining the Role of Symbol in Kant's Philosophy & AestheticsUnpacking and Explaining the Role of Symbol in Kant's Philosophy & Aesthetics124845710.22034/jpiut.2019.8457FAFaridehAfarinAssistant professor, Art studies Department, Art Faculty, Semnan UniversityJournal Article20180426In the Kantian symbolism, it seems that there is a different kind of rule or modes of presentations, which sheds new light on a variety of concepts of understanding with references to ideas of reason. In this way, the type of presentation is indicated by the description of the various types of concepts that are presented in intuition in the process of cognition in Kant's philosophy. The first step is the introduction and identification of all kinds of concepts and intuitions in Kant's philosophy so that we can clarify the role of mark and characteristics in his thought. Schematisation is explained through emphasis relation between concepts and pure intuition or spatiotemporal determination in the mechanism of cognition so that the distinction of the schema from the symbol is designated. In the next step, we clarify the role of symbol in the judgment of taste with an emphasis on free and adherent beauty. Consequently, we make bright the judgment like “beauty is the symbol of the morally good”. Finally, let's also clarify how the symbol evolves, with emphasis on two types of natural and artistic symbolism. To define the symbol in Kant's thought, two negative and positive ways have been used. Relying on aesthetics and art is to understand its implications. The result is that the symbol is a kind of reflective rule which will form in a different situation, in Kant's thought. over pure concepts of understanding, ideas of reason with a reflection on the form of new referent or special schema or new intuition and with reference to concepts of understanding lead to an extension in the meaning of the different concepts of understanding in the light of ideas of reasonIn the Kantian symbolism, it seems that there is a different kind of rule or modes of presentations, which sheds new light on a variety of concepts of understanding with references to ideas of reason. In this way, the type of presentation is indicated by the description of the various types of concepts that are presented in intuition in the process of cognition in Kant's philosophy. The first step is the introduction and identification of all kinds of concepts and intuitions in Kant's philosophy so that we can clarify the role of mark and characteristics in his thought. Schematisation is explained through emphasis relation between concepts and pure intuition or spatiotemporal determination in the mechanism of cognition so that the distinction of the schema from the symbol is designated. In the next step, we clarify the role of symbol in the judgment of taste with an emphasis on free and adherent beauty. Consequently, we make bright the judgment like “beauty is the symbol of the morally good”. Finally, let's also clarify how the symbol evolves, with emphasis on two types of natural and artistic symbolism. To define the symbol in Kant's thought, two negative and positive ways have been used. Relying on aesthetics and art is to understand its implications. The result is that the symbol is a kind of reflective rule which will form in a different situation, in Kant's thought. over pure concepts of understanding, ideas of reason with a reflection on the form of new referent or special schema or new intuition and with reference to concepts of understanding lead to an extension in the meaning of the different concepts of understanding in the light of ideas of reasonhttps://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8457_f1f043d7dc0285dbc7f4885c750372a6.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Status of Lived Experience from the Perspective of Philosophy of Body in Process of Designing and Creating PlaceThe Status of Lived Experience from the Perspective of Philosophy of Body in Process of Designing and Creating Place2552802310.22034/jpiut.2019.8023FAAliAkbariAssistant Professor, Architecture Department, Art & Architecture Faculty, Yadegar-e-Imam Khomeini (RAH) of Shahre Rey Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.MahdiehNiroomand ShishavanMaster of Architecture, Architecture and Urbanism Faculty, Art University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran.Journal Article20171030By the rise of human advancements in the era of the digital technology revolution, Illustration in all aspects of human life, especially in the creation of artwork and architecture, surpassed. In such a way, the focus of attention is on the eyes and sight of the human being. This has been expanded in the process of designing and creating space. The illustration is the basic principle of architectural design, and the neglecting of other senses reduces the level of human perception and consciousness from the space. Accordingly, it can be questioned: What is the relation of the body with space? What the role of lived experience in the process of creating a place is? In this research, it has been attempted to answer these questions based on the philosophical basis of interpretation with the qualitative approach. The results of the discussion show that the components of the design process and the creation of place are found to be eternal, based on "eternal life dimensions of man" including his " lived experience", "fictitious forms in embodied memory," and "Collective and individual memories". In presentation of design process model, creating place, while responding to the practical aspect, immediately begins its journey into the world of imagination, interdisciplinary imagination, myths, and the metaphorical meaning of the presence of man, which is in the light of his consciousness, and is based on his experience of life, and all his scientific and professional skills to achieve the best respond.By the rise of human advancements in the era of the digital technology revolution, Illustration in all aspects of human life, especially in the creation of artwork and architecture, surpassed. In such a way, the focus of attention is on the eyes and sight of the human being. This has been expanded in the process of designing and creating space. The illustration is the basic principle of architectural design, and the neglecting of other senses reduces the level of human perception and consciousness from the space. Accordingly, it can be questioned: What is the relation of the body with space? What the role of lived experience in the process of creating a place is? In this research, it has been attempted to answer these questions based on the philosophical basis of interpretation with the qualitative approach. The results of the discussion show that the components of the design process and the creation of place are found to be eternal, based on "eternal life dimensions of man" including his " lived experience", "fictitious forms in embodied memory," and "Collective and individual memories". In presentation of design process model, creating place, while responding to the practical aspect, immediately begins its journey into the world of imagination, interdisciplinary imagination, myths, and the metaphorical meaning of the presence of man, which is in the light of his consciousness, and is based on his experience of life, and all his scientific and professional skills to achieve the best respond.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8023_780a72f85f671bf55fd5d20f3d75db74.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522On Reality of Events in the Philosophy of Time; An Examination of the Notion of Relative Reality in 20th-Century Debate about Inconsistency of Dynamic Models and Special Theory of RelativityOn Reality of Events in the Philosophy of Time; An Examination of the Notion of Relative Reality in 20th-Century Debate about Inconsistency of Dynamic Models and Special Theory of Relativity5382802410.22034/jpiut.2019.8024FAHassanAmiriaraPh.D., Philosophy of Science, Iranian Institute of Philosophy,Journal Article20171101There are two main camps in 20th-century philosophy of time: A-theorists who believe in the dynamic model of reality, and B-theorists who maintain a static model of reality. After the publication of Putnam’s influential article, “time and physical geometry” (1967), the implications of the Special Theory of Relativity became serious in metaphysical discussions about temporal reality. Some philosophers argued that this theory contradicts the dynamic model and implies the ontology of the static model, namely, the objective reality of the present, past and future events. In response, some advocates of the dynamic model argued that there can be dynamic models in relativistic setting, though they are different, radically, from old theories of dynamic reality. In this paper, first, I shall discuss how special relativity contradicts the traditional dynamic model and, then, how new dynamic models imply a relative concept of reality, in contrast to its old absolute concept and, so, why these strategies are very unintuitive. Finally, I shall argue that this radical conceptual shift about reality is, not only unintuitive, but unwarranted and, in some sense, inconsistent as well.There are two main camps in 20th-century philosophy of time: A-theorists who believe in the dynamic model of reality, and B-theorists who maintain a static model of reality. After the publication of Putnam’s influential article, “time and physical geometry” (1967), the implications of the Special Theory of Relativity became serious in metaphysical discussions about temporal reality. Some philosophers argued that this theory contradicts the dynamic model and implies the ontology of the static model, namely, the objective reality of the present, past and future events. In response, some advocates of the dynamic model argued that there can be dynamic models in relativistic setting, though they are different, radically, from old theories of dynamic reality. In this paper, first, I shall discuss how special relativity contradicts the traditional dynamic model and, then, how new dynamic models imply a relative concept of reality, in contrast to its old absolute concept and, so, why these strategies are very unintuitive. Finally, I shall argue that this radical conceptual shift about reality is, not only unintuitive, but unwarranted and, in some sense, inconsistent as well.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8024_5d1d7e6c7fdd4c4103daaa6768af961d.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Appropriation in Deleuze's Philosophy: An Essay on Deleuze's Anti-Platonism and its Relation with Modern ArtAppropriation in Deleuze's Philosophy: An Essay on Deleuze's Anti-Platonism and its Relation with Modern Art83101803810.22034/jpiut.2019.8038FAMajidParvanehpourPhD in philosophy from University of IsfahanSaidBinayemotlaghAssociate Professor, University of IsfahanJournal Article20171111This paper would attempt to illustrate some possible links between Deleuze's way of thinking and the practice of modern and post-modern artists. This analogy is defined and explained in the context of Deleuze's anti-Platonism to see if there is a relation between Deleuze's struggle to oppose anti-Platonism, his desire to create a new way of thinking, and what modern artists actually did in their practice. Hence, after defining some of the concepts and showing the importance and function of them in modern art, the paper would try to trace the same concepts in Deleuze's thought. It will then explain Deleuze's anti-Platonism putting emphasis on the concept of simulacrum; meanwhile, it will briefly answer Badiou's critique of Deleuze's anti-Platonism. Finally, it would show that Deleuze, relying on this opposition, and in fact inspired by intellectual processes used by post-modern artists, is trying to find a third way for thinking to a world full of images. He introduces a path that neither goes back and nor, as we find with Baudrillard, sees the world as an apocalyptic world of images in which we wander.This paper would attempt to illustrate some possible links between Deleuze's way of thinking and the practice of modern and post-modern artists. This analogy is defined and explained in the context of Deleuze's anti-Platonism to see if there is a relation between Deleuze's struggle to oppose anti-Platonism, his desire to create a new way of thinking, and what modern artists actually did in their practice. Hence, after defining some of the concepts and showing the importance and function of them in modern art, the paper would try to trace the same concepts in Deleuze's thought. It will then explain Deleuze's anti-Platonism putting emphasis on the concept of simulacrum; meanwhile, it will briefly answer Badiou's critique of Deleuze's anti-Platonism. Finally, it would show that Deleuze, relying on this opposition, and in fact inspired by intellectual processes used by post-modern artists, is trying to find a third way for thinking to a world full of images. He introduces a path that neither goes back and nor, as we find with Baudrillard, sees the world as an apocalyptic world of images in which we wander.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8038_28c86de12b024b97e96d457f91b26b16.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522A Critical Analysis of the Third Paralogism of Kant's Paralogisms of Pure ReasonA Critical Analysis of the Third Paralogism of Kant's Paralogisms of Pure Reason103121835610.22034/jpiut.2019.8356FAAhmadHamdollahiassistant professor of Azarbaijan Shahid Madani UniversityJournal Article20140827In the third paralogism, Kant seeking to show that the recognition of identity and the personality of the soul is not possible, and the argument which claims to be the proof of identity and the personality of the soul is an absurd argument. But the words and explanations that he has presented in this regard are far more complex and vague. At this paper we have tried, firstly, by thorough reflection on this descriptions and focus on other Kant's fundamental opinions and views, get a fairly detailed picture of his view of this so-called fallacy; secondly, to critique and evaluate his view.
A detailed analysis of Kant's explanations shows that, on the one hand, he emphasizes on the identity of the soul as an analytic and a priori truth, but on the other hand, at the same time, his main goal and all his efforts is to show that An analytical and a priori identity of the soul is not an objective identity; therefore, citing it, one cannot claim to recognize the objective identity and personality of the soul. The result of evaluating Kant's main claims on the third Paralogism is that, due to the conflicts and inconsistencies between these claims with some of the basic perspectives and principles of his philosophy, he cannot consistently and logically deny the recognition of objective identity and personality of the soul.In the third paralogism, Kant seeking to show that the recognition of identity and the personality of the soul is not possible, and the argument which claims to be the proof of identity and the personality of the soul is an absurd argument. But the words and explanations that he has presented in this regard are far more complex and vague. At this paper we have tried, firstly, by thorough reflection on this descriptions and focus on other Kant's fundamental opinions and views, get a fairly detailed picture of his view of this so-called fallacy; secondly, to critique and evaluate his view.
A detailed analysis of Kant's explanations shows that, on the one hand, he emphasizes on the identity of the soul as an analytic and a priori truth, but on the other hand, at the same time, his main goal and all his efforts is to show that An analytical and a priori identity of the soul is not an objective identity; therefore, citing it, one cannot claim to recognize the objective identity and personality of the soul. The result of evaluating Kant's main claims on the third Paralogism is that, due to the conflicts and inconsistencies between these claims with some of the basic perspectives and principles of his philosophy, he cannot consistently and logically deny the recognition of objective identity and personality of the soul.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8356_d8615aebee54f72467e8daa3c066208e.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Meaning of Individuality and Tragic Balance in Hafiz Poems (A Review of Hafiz Poems according to Dionysian and Apollonian in Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Art)The Meaning of Individuality and Tragic Balance in Hafiz Poems (A Review of Hafiz Poems according to Dionysian and Apollonian in Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Art)123146802710.22034/jpiut.2019.8027FAAhmadaliHeydariAssociate Professor of philosophy in Allameh Tabataba'i UniversityAliAzizianPhD Candidate of philosophy of art, Allameh Tabataba'i UniversityJournal Article20180307Tragic balance in art philosophy of Nietzsche consisting of summation of Dionysian and Apollonian and balance between them. Dionysian is will to unity with Origin and affirming to it and Apollonian is the same affirming in the life form. Move to be united with Origin in Dionysian mode in Hafiz poem and theosophical tradition is mystic intoxication one that is symbolized with wine and cupbearer. Traditionally in theosophy, move to be united with Origin and finitude in it, is always the absolute value. But Tragic is different. Tragic at the same time with reserve this will, inquire the Origin in the emanations of it as nature and life and individuality. The tragic balance should be known as affirming of all aspects of being, this in Hafiz poems equal with contentedness and libertinism. Hafiz against the whole tradition of Sophism that was altogether upon ebriety or sobriety, it means in the direction of finitude in God or asceticism and hypocrisy, or an insipid mixture of them; represented a solution to remain in the tragic scene of being, not infinitude but in contentedness that is resulting from libertinism, partake from intoxication of presenting in presence of being.Tragic balance in art philosophy of Nietzsche consisting of summation of Dionysian and Apollonian and balance between them. Dionysian is will to unity with Origin and affirming to it and Apollonian is the same affirming in the life form. Move to be united with Origin in Dionysian mode in Hafiz poem and theosophical tradition is mystic intoxication one that is symbolized with wine and cupbearer. Traditionally in theosophy, move to be united with Origin and finitude in it, is always the absolute value. But Tragic is different. Tragic at the same time with reserve this will, inquire the Origin in the emanations of it as nature and life and individuality. The tragic balance should be known as affirming of all aspects of being, this in Hafiz poems equal with contentedness and libertinism. Hafiz against the whole tradition of Sophism that was altogether upon ebriety or sobriety, it means in the direction of finitude in God or asceticism and hypocrisy, or an insipid mixture of them; represented a solution to remain in the tragic scene of being, not infinitude but in contentedness that is resulting from libertinism, partake from intoxication of presenting in presence of being.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8027_d606d21dfcc40d2cbdaed033f665c271.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Elizabeth Fricker on Testimonial Justification: A Critical ReviewElizabeth Fricker on Testimonial Justification: A Critical Review147168803510.22034/jpiut.2019.8035FAAlirezaDorri NogooraniPhd. candidate of philosophy at Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, Iran.RezaAkbariprofessor at philosophy and kalam department, faculty of theology, Islamic teachings and guidance, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, IranJournal Article20170902Elizabeth Fricker’s writings on testimonial justification include some contrary ideas. In this paper, we propose Fricker’s theory of justification coherently and explain why she speaks of different ideas and which idea is more compatible with her general theory of knowledge. Fricker proposes three conditions for justification of testimonial beliefs for adults by appealing to commonsense world-picture and defining a paradigm case of testimony: justified belief of using speech act of telling, justified belief of the sincere of testifier and the competence of testifier. The speech act of telling itself requires that for example, testifier at least apparently speaks from his knowledge and thinks that hearer is ignorant of the testimony. We argue that various parts of Fricker’s theory face problems. For example, double standard about children and adults in testimonial justification is against unity of conception of knowledge.
<br /><br />چون تعداد کلمات کمتر از 150 کلمه بود این عبارت در اینجا قرار گرفت تا اجازه عبور از این مرحله داده شود.Elizabeth Fricker’s writings on testimonial justification include some contrary ideas. In this paper, we propose Fricker’s theory of justification coherently and explain why she speaks of different ideas and which idea is more compatible with her general theory of knowledge. Fricker proposes three conditions for justification of testimonial beliefs for adults by appealing to commonsense world-picture and defining a paradigm case of testimony: justified belief of using speech act of telling, justified belief of the sincere of testifier and the competence of testifier. The speech act of telling itself requires that for example, testifier at least apparently speaks from his knowledge and thinks that hearer is ignorant of the testimony. We argue that various parts of Fricker’s theory face problems. For example, double standard about children and adults in testimonial justification is against unity of conception of knowledge.
<br /><br />چون تعداد کلمات کمتر از 150 کلمه بود این عبارت در اینجا قرار گرفت تا اجازه عبور از این مرحله داده شود.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8035_fa2866f474f795ed1ab024f27fd47d00.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Materialistic Ontology: A Comparative Study of the philosophy of Charvaka and EpicuresMaterialistic Ontology: A Comparative Study of the philosophy of Charvaka and Epicures169193802610.22034/jpiut.2019.8026FASajjadDehghanzadehAssistant Professor. Shahid Madani University of AzarbaijanFatemehAhmadianMaster Student of Religions and Mysticism, Shahid Madani University of AzarbaijanJournal Article20171218In the history of religious and philosophical thought of India, Charvaka philosophy (Lokayata) is a unique school of thought that by having theoretical tenets of materialism, provides a purely materialistic interpretation of existence. This school, through the negation of realm beyond sensory perception, asserts to the pure originality of the material and supposes that the only the material reality has validity and the sole authentic perception is the sensory perception. Expressing of atomistic cosmology, apparently, Epicurean philosophy in Greece is the most similar school of thought to Charvakh. The findings of this article which is obtained by method of comparison and analyze, shows that in both schools of thought, reality is based on the originality of the material, two kinds of causes are rejected, human's existence is explained only based on his material dimension, as well as any existence after death is denied. However, these two of philosophy offer different interpretations about the component of existence and nature and kinds of them as well as about tangible or intangible of them. In the history of religious and philosophical thought of India, Charvaka philosophy (Lokayata) is a unique school of thought that by having theoretical tenets of materialism, provides a purely materialistic interpretation of existence. This school, through the negation of realm beyond sensory perception, asserts to the pure originality of the material and supposes that the only the material reality has validity and the sole authentic perception is the sensory perception. Expressing of atomistic cosmology, apparently, Epicurean philosophy in Greece is the most similar school of thought to Charvakh. The findings of this article which is obtained by method of comparison and analyze, shows that in both schools of thought, reality is based on the originality of the material, two kinds of causes are rejected, human's existence is explained only based on his material dimension, as well as any existence after death is denied. However, these two of philosophy offer different interpretations about the component of existence and nature and kinds of them as well as about tangible or intangible of them. https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8026_93c793e51e79570f1602307130460031.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Relation between Names and Things in Crtylus and its Relation to the Problem of Nomos and PhusisThe Relation between Names and Things in Crtylus and its Relation to the Problem of Nomos and Phusis195212803910.22034/jpiut.2019.8039FAAmirhosseinSaketPh.D. in philosophy, Center for the Great Islamic EncyclopediaJournal Article20171116The question concerning names and things discussed in Cratylus, repeats the old and fundamental philosophical subject of "phusis" and "nomos"; an essential issue which may be considered as the ground for many theories in Greek philosophy. The question In Cratylus is how relates a name (ονομα) to its object or thing (πραγμα) to which the name refers. Are names by nature, i.e. is there any necessary relation between a name and its object (φυσει), or as long as there is a convention, an object could be called by any name (θεσει). According to Socrates the true nature of anything is tobe found in its idea and not in its perishable material form. Thus the naturally correct name is that which imitates the idea and reveals it.The question concerning names and things discussed in Cratylus, repeats the old and fundamental philosophical subject of "phusis" and "nomos"; an essential issue which may be considered as the ground for many theories in Greek philosophy. The question In Cratylus is how relates a name (ονομα) to its object or thing (πραγμα) to which the name refers. Are names by nature, i.e. is there any necessary relation between a name and its object (φυσει), or as long as there is a convention, an object could be called by any name (θεσει). According to Socrates the true nature of anything is tobe found in its idea and not in its perishable material form. Thus the naturally correct name is that which imitates the idea and reveals it.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8039_ebccd58d25b26d49aae35fbe99e556aa.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Review of Moral Interpretation of Aesthetic Deduction in Kant’s thoughtThe Review of Moral Interpretation of Aesthetic Deduction in Kant’s thought213232800810.22034/jpiut.2019.8008FAAliSalmaniAssociate professor, Bu Ali Sina UniversityDavoodMirzaiiPhD. in the philosophy of art, Bu Ali Sina UniversityJournal Article20180314Kant needs to deduction in order to provide for universal and necessary validity of aesthetic judgment in the critique of judgment. In the deduction sections, He wants a reply to this question: how can a singular judgment be universally valid for everyone? In other words, how can the aesthetic judgment which basically is subjective, claim universal validity? Some of the Kant's commentators believe that Kant's deduction which expresses in the formal sections is unsuccessful and then they by the connecting of the beauty with morality want to provide an objective base for the aesthetic judgment. They aimed to explain the universal validity of the judgments. This essay first express deduction, then crisis the moral interpretation of Kant's deduction. It seems that believe in a moral point of view in the deduction's topic neglect the autonomy of aesthetic judgments and arises hetoronoum judgments.Kant needs to deduction in order to provide for universal and necessary validity of aesthetic judgment in the critique of judgment. In the deduction sections, He wants a reply to this question: how can a singular judgment be universally valid for everyone? In other words, how can the aesthetic judgment which basically is subjective, claim universal validity? Some of the Kant's commentators believe that Kant's deduction which expresses in the formal sections is unsuccessful and then they by the connecting of the beauty with morality want to provide an objective base for the aesthetic judgment. They aimed to explain the universal validity of the judgments. This essay first express deduction, then crisis the moral interpretation of Kant's deduction. It seems that believe in a moral point of view in the deduction's topic neglect the autonomy of aesthetic judgments and arises hetoronoum judgments.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8008_aca0ac15e649135dab4c866826137456.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Kant and Heıdegger on Phenomenon: a Crıtıcal ComparısonKant and Heıdegger on Phenomenon: a Crıtıcal Comparıson233246802910.22034/jpiut.2019.8029FAMohammadjavadSafianAssociate Professor, University of IsfahanJournal Article20180408The phenomenon is one of the ancient words in the history of western philosophy. It is used repeatedly in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and also is in Hume, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, and many other philosophers. In this essay, the main topic is comparing the sense of phenomenon in Kant and Heidegger. This is important because Kant's thoughts have caused fundamental changes in philosophy and as he claims he has created a Copernican Revolution in philosophy. It seems that his consideration of Phenomenon is, at least, one of the main elements of his Copernican Revolution, and, since he is one of the greatest modern philosophers, his understanding of the meaning of phenomenon has an essential relation to modern thought. The questions of this essay are: 1. what does phenomenon mean to Kant? And which consequences does it bring about? 2. What does phenomenon mean to Heidegger and how does he reject Kantian Phenomenon?The phenomenon is one of the ancient words in the history of western philosophy. It is used repeatedly in the works of Plato and Aristotle, and also is in Hume, Kant, Hegel, Husserl, Heidegger, and many other philosophers. In this essay, the main topic is comparing the sense of phenomenon in Kant and Heidegger. This is important because Kant's thoughts have caused fundamental changes in philosophy and as he claims he has created a Copernican Revolution in philosophy. It seems that his consideration of Phenomenon is, at least, one of the main elements of his Copernican Revolution, and, since he is one of the greatest modern philosophers, his understanding of the meaning of phenomenon has an essential relation to modern thought. The questions of this essay are: 1. what does phenomenon mean to Kant? And which consequences does it bring about? 2. What does phenomenon mean to Heidegger and how does he reject Kantian Phenomenon?https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8029_a4371703475e83d3dc5b5c5d95f0e2ae.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Kant's Theory of Judgment, Explicit Predication or Implicit one?Kant's Theory of Judgment, Explicit Predication or Implicit one?247270803610.22034/jpiut.2019.8036FAAhmadAli AkbarMesgariAssistance Professor, University of Shahid BeheshtiArashJamshidpourPh.D. Candidate of Modern and Contemporary Philosophy, University of Shahid Beheshti,Journal Article20170904Theory of judgment is a significant problem in contemporary philosophy. Epistemology, logic, semantics and cognitive psychology are important philosophical areas which deal with different faces of the theory of judgment. One of the greatest problems in contemporary Kant Studies concerns Kant’s theory of judgment. Until 1970, an accepted reading of Kant’s theory of judgment was widespread among Kant’s English-speaking interpreters. Since 1970, some scholars began to understand and interpret Kant’s theory of judgment in a different way. This shift has led to huge and wide interpretive-philosophical discussions among Kant’s scholars. According to some scholars, traces of two different theories of judgment are found in Kant’s works: explicit theory of judgment and implicit theory of judgment. In this paper, considering interpretive viewpoints of some of Kant scholars, we contrast these two theories of predication and explicate their differences. Our conclusion is that Kant’s implicit or hidden theory of judgment is more consistent with Kant’s works and philosophical views. Moreover, one of the main implications of implicit theory of judgment is that we must interpret Chapter of Schematism and logico-semantic structure of a priori synthetic judgments in a different way.Theory of judgment is a significant problem in contemporary philosophy. Epistemology, logic, semantics and cognitive psychology are important philosophical areas which deal with different faces of the theory of judgment. One of the greatest problems in contemporary Kant Studies concerns Kant’s theory of judgment. Until 1970, an accepted reading of Kant’s theory of judgment was widespread among Kant’s English-speaking interpreters. Since 1970, some scholars began to understand and interpret Kant’s theory of judgment in a different way. This shift has led to huge and wide interpretive-philosophical discussions among Kant’s scholars. According to some scholars, traces of two different theories of judgment are found in Kant’s works: explicit theory of judgment and implicit theory of judgment. In this paper, considering interpretive viewpoints of some of Kant scholars, we contrast these two theories of predication and explicate their differences. Our conclusion is that Kant’s implicit or hidden theory of judgment is more consistent with Kant’s works and philosophical views. Moreover, one of the main implications of implicit theory of judgment is that we must interpret Chapter of Schematism and logico-semantic structure of a priori synthetic judgments in a different way.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8036_458d7f0f4934c38194bf02bd093df8b4.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Athır Al-Din Al-Abhari on Condıtıonal SyllogısmAthır Al-Din Al-Abhari on Condıtıonal Syllogısm271295804210.22034/jpiut.2019.8042FAAsadollahFallahiAssociate Profesor in Iranian Institute of PhilosophyJournal Article20180130In his second period of logical research, which includes several books and treatises, Athir al-Din al-Abhari is the only Avicennan logician who vindicated as invalid one of the two most important Avicennan novelties: iqtirani conditional syllogism. His exposition and reasons for this invalidity in these books and treatises are various and rooted in numerous kinds of conditionals and their truth-conditions and their developments in the books and treatises. His most important reason to deny conditional syllogism is notice to the manifold assumptions used to prove the syllogisms. In this paper, we deal with the main reason, studying the mentioned differences and developments. Citing successor logicians’ points of views on Abhari’s claim and assessment of all of them is out of the purposes of this paper and in need to other researches.In his second period of logical research, which includes several books and treatises, Athir al-Din al-Abhari is the only Avicennan logician who vindicated as invalid one of the two most important Avicennan novelties: iqtirani conditional syllogism. His exposition and reasons for this invalidity in these books and treatises are various and rooted in numerous kinds of conditionals and their truth-conditions and their developments in the books and treatises. His most important reason to deny conditional syllogism is notice to the manifold assumptions used to prove the syllogisms. In this paper, we deal with the main reason, studying the mentioned differences and developments. Citing successor logicians’ points of views on Abhari’s claim and assessment of all of them is out of the purposes of this paper and in need to other researches.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8042_5dcb42d40c278b5080eb68c6adfe30ff.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Semantics of Conditional Propositions in Stoic-Megarian LogicThe Semantics of Conditional Propositions in Stoic-Megarian Logic297315804010.22034/jpiut.2019.8040FAKamranGhayoumzadehAssistant Professor, Shahid Madani's University of AzarbaijanSaraKhakipourM. A. Graduated in Islamic Philosophy, Shahid Madani University of AzarbaijanJournal Article20171117The main issue of the present Article is a discussion about the conditional proposition in Stoic- Megarian Logic. There were, in Stoic-Megarian school, many theories of meaning to interpret these propositions. Since conditional propositions made the structure's core of their Logic, so for the understanding of the key concept of their thought, we need searching, prior to anything, in the semantics of these propositions. We will, in the first place and much survey, compare between Stoic-Megarian Logic and Aristotelian Logic and present where is the state of conditional propositions in the Stoic-Megarian Logic; then, in the second place, we explore all kinds of conditional proposition and their conditions of truth values in Stoic-Megarian Logic and compare them with the concept of implication in modern logic and reinterpret them with new instruments in modern logic. Most logicians, in this field, evaluate and compare Stoic-Megarian conditional propositions with definitions of Material implication, strict implication, and Natural laws and we, in this Article, evaluate and analyze these propositions with this perspective and ideas.The main issue of the present Article is a discussion about the conditional proposition in Stoic- Megarian Logic. There were, in Stoic-Megarian school, many theories of meaning to interpret these propositions. Since conditional propositions made the structure's core of their Logic, so for the understanding of the key concept of their thought, we need searching, prior to anything, in the semantics of these propositions. We will, in the first place and much survey, compare between Stoic-Megarian Logic and Aristotelian Logic and present where is the state of conditional propositions in the Stoic-Megarian Logic; then, in the second place, we explore all kinds of conditional proposition and their conditions of truth values in Stoic-Megarian Logic and compare them with the concept of implication in modern logic and reinterpret them with new instruments in modern logic. Most logicians, in this field, evaluate and compare Stoic-Megarian conditional propositions with definitions of Material implication, strict implication, and Natural laws and we, in this Article, evaluate and analyze these propositions with this perspective and ideas.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8040_b4cd26d32d6cc65925ec49590733a28d.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Phronesis in Plato's Intellectual SystemPhronesis in Plato's Intellectual System317337888710.22034/jpiut.2019.25509.1955FASaharKavandiAssociate professor, University of ZanjanMaryamAhmadiPh.D Candidate, University of ZanjanJournal Article20180124Phronesis is a fundamental term in Ancient Greek Philosophical tradition. This term is based on »wise- ruler« in Plato and »legislator- philosopher« thought in Plato. Most of Philosophers and commentators of Aristotle work relate methodical use of this term to Aristotle. This affair is the result of the manner of these two philosopher’s expression. But their ambiguity shows phronesis less importance in Plato’s intellectual tradition.Phronesis in Plato is brightness that results from good perception. But in his last work, means Plato, phronesis hasn’t only divine origin, but in the meaning of Grief and Political Knowledge, is the supplement of sophia that is the highest coordination between reason and desire in spirit. Phronesis in Plato is responsible for creating governmental- philosophical rules and practical judgment through experience and council. By this, phronesis owners can merge wisdom and politics and see better than others. So, sophia and phronesis aren't synonyms in Plato, but their conceptual application are related to each other: as phronesis owner has practical wisdom- sophia in Aristotle thought.Phronesis is a fundamental term in Ancient Greek Philosophical tradition. This term is based on »wise- ruler« in Plato and »legislator- philosopher« thought in Plato. Most of Philosophers and commentators of Aristotle work relate methodical use of this term to Aristotle. This affair is the result of the manner of these two philosopher’s expression. But their ambiguity shows phronesis less importance in Plato’s intellectual tradition.Phronesis in Plato is brightness that results from good perception. But in his last work, means Plato, phronesis hasn’t only divine origin, but in the meaning of Grief and Political Knowledge, is the supplement of sophia that is the highest coordination between reason and desire in spirit. Phronesis in Plato is responsible for creating governmental- philosophical rules and practical judgment through experience and council. By this, phronesis owners can merge wisdom and politics and see better than others. So, sophia and phronesis aren't synonyms in Plato, but their conceptual application are related to each other: as phronesis owner has practical wisdom- sophia in Aristotle thought.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8887_2b1efced1df1819df2097693095066d2.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Originality of Ross’s Meta-Ethical View on Good and its Justification in Moral act in Light of the philosophy of Kant and MooreThe Originality of Ross’s Meta-Ethical View on Good and its Justification in Moral act in Light of the philosophy of Kant and Moore339360862810.22034/jpiut.2019.28966.2069FAHOSSEINKalbasi AshtariProfessor of Allameh Tabataba’i UniversityBitaNakhaeiPh.D. Student of Allameh Tabataba’i UniversityJournal Article20180822One of the most important concepts in meta-ethics which are used in moral contexts and has a significant role in moral judgments is the concept of goodness, which is a value concept. William David Ross was a philosopher who scrutinized this concept and said it is not analyzable to other moral concepts such as ought, right, duty and responsibility. Although other philosophers preceded him including Kant and Moore theorized about goodness and had different accounts about this concept, their views had a deep influence on Ross. This paper tries to examine his meta-ethical view in the light of Kant and Moore’s thoughts and their ethical theories. The method of this research is comparative and descriptive and has used books and online sources in order to see in what cases he was influenced by them and to what extent we can call his view new. Finally, this research concludes that though Ross was influenced by them, he could overcome their difficulties and bring up his new theory about this subject. And although he criticized their thoughts, he tried to unite some elements of their views and added other elements to them in order to express his final theory about the goodness of character.One of the most important concepts in meta-ethics which are used in moral contexts and has a significant role in moral judgments is the concept of goodness, which is a value concept. William David Ross was a philosopher who scrutinized this concept and said it is not analyzable to other moral concepts such as ought, right, duty and responsibility. Although other philosophers preceded him including Kant and Moore theorized about goodness and had different accounts about this concept, their views had a deep influence on Ross. This paper tries to examine his meta-ethical view in the light of Kant and Moore’s thoughts and their ethical theories. The method of this research is comparative and descriptive and has used books and online sources in order to see in what cases he was influenced by them and to what extent we can call his view new. Finally, this research concludes that though Ross was influenced by them, he could overcome their difficulties and bring up his new theory about this subject. And although he criticized their thoughts, he tried to unite some elements of their views and added other elements to them in order to express his final theory about the goodness of character.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8628_fafd4520bf820254eee737f377eb38c9.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522Kant and Twofold Forms of the Highest Good in the HistoryKant and Twofold Forms of the Highest Good in the History361380803210.22034/jpiut.2019.8032FARezaMahooziAssociate Professor of Philosophy, Institute for Social and Cultural Studies, Tehran, IranZohrehSaeediFaculty member, Institute for Culture, Art and Communications, Tehran, IranJournal Article20161023In Kant's moral theory, he describes two levels of highest good as sensible (realizable) and supersensible (reasonable). He mentions to these concepts in all his works, without shedding light on fundamental conflict and dispute inherited in the simultaneousness of these two. In accordance with the first level of this concept, have been known as a theological reading of the highest good concept, comparison, and accompaniment of two component of the highest good, that is happiness and virtue, only is achieved with the help of God. In addition to the postulate of God, this subject needs two other reasonable ideas of immortality and freedom. Besides, in accordance with the second level of this concept known as the secular and political reading of the highest good, the comparison is achieved with the help of human activity in this world in form of civil society. This content conflict, contrary to the view of some scholars, refers to two complementary forms in Kant’s thought and it corresponds with the general principles of his critical thinking. While explains Kant’s twofold positions on the highest good, this paper tries to demonstrate how these two forms need to another and otherwise, the complementary component cannot be explained.In Kant's moral theory, he describes two levels of highest good as sensible (realizable) and supersensible (reasonable). He mentions to these concepts in all his works, without shedding light on fundamental conflict and dispute inherited in the simultaneousness of these two. In accordance with the first level of this concept, have been known as a theological reading of the highest good concept, comparison, and accompaniment of two component of the highest good, that is happiness and virtue, only is achieved with the help of God. In addition to the postulate of God, this subject needs two other reasonable ideas of immortality and freedom. Besides, in accordance with the second level of this concept known as the secular and political reading of the highest good, the comparison is achieved with the help of human activity in this world in form of civil society. This content conflict, contrary to the view of some scholars, refers to two complementary forms in Kant’s thought and it corresponds with the general principles of his critical thinking. While explains Kant’s twofold positions on the highest good, this paper tries to demonstrate how these two forms need to another and otherwise, the complementary component cannot be explained.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8032_6b0b2368ca8c976b8bb50c7b23fa0755.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Role of the Principle of Identity in Logical-Mental Nature of Aristotle's Categories of BeingThe Role of the Principle of Identity in Logical-Mental Nature of Aristotle's Categories of Being381394802510.22034/jpiut.2019.8025FANaserMomeniPh.D. of Philosophy, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Brand. Tehran, IranRezaDavari ArdakaniProfessor of Islamic Azad University. Science and Research Branch. Tehran, IranJournal Article20171128All kinds of identity are typical, genus, and numerical identity. This predication that is the basis of the propositional language of Aristotle is the condition of speaking and use of categories and general concepts in the realm of beings. Because of this, these categories are called categories of being. Before we can speak of prediction, everything must be self-identical. So we have now the best known and logical form of the principle of identity i.e. A=A. Aristotle with formulating the logic and with a concentrate on the numerical identity leads to a kind of concept of the world i.e. conceptual-logical world. The world, after that, is the world of mind and logical thought. With the superiority of the numerical identity and constitution of the principle of identity, the nature of categories is logical-Mindy nature. The definition of identity as A=A give rise to man solely directed at the logical form of this principle and will wipe out of ontological sense. So this particular view about identity leads to a formulation of logical-mindy nature of categories.All kinds of identity are typical, genus, and numerical identity. This predication that is the basis of the propositional language of Aristotle is the condition of speaking and use of categories and general concepts in the realm of beings. Because of this, these categories are called categories of being. Before we can speak of prediction, everything must be self-identical. So we have now the best known and logical form of the principle of identity i.e. A=A. Aristotle with formulating the logic and with a concentrate on the numerical identity leads to a kind of concept of the world i.e. conceptual-logical world. The world, after that, is the world of mind and logical thought. With the superiority of the numerical identity and constitution of the principle of identity, the nature of categories is logical-Mindy nature. The definition of identity as A=A give rise to man solely directed at the logical form of this principle and will wipe out of ontological sense. So this particular view about identity leads to a formulation of logical-mindy nature of categories.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8025_764445b2983d97bb4c7c2533550828e0.pdfUniversity of TabrizJournal of Philosophical Investigations2251-7960132620190522The Relationship between Morals and Aesthetics in Hume’s PhilosophyThe Relationship between Morals and Aesthetics in Hume’s Philosophy395421846510.22034/jpiut.2019.8465FAZolfagarHemmatiAssistant Professor, 3 Allameh Institute of Islamic & Humanities sciences, University of Tabriz0000-0002-6985-400XJalalPeykaniAssociate Professor, University of Payam-e noorMustafaShahraeiniAssociate Professor of Philosophy Department, University of TabrizMahmoudSoufianiAssistant Professor, University of TabrizJournal Article20181117During the history of philosophy, morals and beauty, and finding a diagnostic criterion for them, was a very important problem for philosophers. Most of the philosophers maintained that such criterion rooted in reason, but Hume presented a noble idea and said that moral sense based on feeling and sentiment. Everything which through its utility or beauty, leads to pleaser is virtuous. Sometimes directly and sometimes through the beauty and appearing beautiful, the utility leads to pleaser. Also, according to Hume, beauty is a subjective thing measured by the criterion of the pleaser. Thus, pleaser and pain are the criteria of taste and sentiment to the diagnosis of virtue and vice, as well as, the beauty and value of art. <br />In this paper, after comparing and monitoring morals and beauty from four aspects, through brief surveying of certain commentators of Hume, we attempt to explain the relationship between beauty, utility, and pleaser. Finally, we assert that the beauty is very important components in Hume’s explain of Morals, but at the same time aesthetics has no superiority to morals; and thus, we defend the originality of morals to aesthetics.During the history of philosophy, morals and beauty, and finding a diagnostic criterion for them, was a very important problem for philosophers. Most of the philosophers maintained that such criterion rooted in reason, but Hume presented a noble idea and said that moral sense based on feeling and sentiment. Everything which through its utility or beauty, leads to pleaser is virtuous. Sometimes directly and sometimes through the beauty and appearing beautiful, the utility leads to pleaser. Also, according to Hume, beauty is a subjective thing measured by the criterion of the pleaser. Thus, pleaser and pain are the criteria of taste and sentiment to the diagnosis of virtue and vice, as well as, the beauty and value of art. <br />In this paper, after comparing and monitoring morals and beauty from four aspects, through brief surveying of certain commentators of Hume, we attempt to explain the relationship between beauty, utility, and pleaser. Finally, we assert that the beauty is very important components in Hume’s explain of Morals, but at the same time aesthetics has no superiority to morals; and thus, we defend the originality of morals to aesthetics.https://philosophy.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_8465_b978fa09eaf59366a0f14671e2464b44.pdf