فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال دوازدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 46، تابستان 1395)

On the one hand, there are a lot of ongoing disputes in the realm of ethics and, on the other hand, it is very crucial for us to reach consensus over the issue of ethics. Harry J. Gensler tries to recognize rational patterns in our ethical thinking, modeling it after formal logic, and find formal principles in ethics to make a plan for moral rationality and open a way toward this common ground. But it seems to me that this attempt is not successful. Firstly, it is not plausible for us to infer the Golden Rule (GR) from a set of formal principles derived from pure (a priori) reason and thereby is not acceptable for all. Secondly, no version of GR is perfect, each one coming with its own potential defects. And thirdly, Gensler’s discussion does not make GR more efficient in solving major disagreements in ethics. GR is absolutely essential in ethics, but it comes with all the vagueness that accompanies it, through which disagreements become possible.

The purpose of this article is to criticize Daniel Dennett's main argument which has been formulated to explain and justify the compatibility of Human's mental phenomena, particularly his free will, with causal determinism on the basis of ontological naturalism (Physicalism). The article begins with the formulation of this argument. Then, the theories of naturalism and evolution as the backgrounds of Dennett's thesis are explained. Dennett tries to justify the premises of his argument by a novel interpretation of casual determinism based on a difference between casual determinism and inevitability. Finally, it is shown that Dennett's solution for making a compatibility between free will and causal determinism is insufficient and unsatisfactory, and, thus, he has not solved the deep and historical problem of compatibilism.

This brief essay is aimed at making clear the necessity of considering the two meaning’s of the Arabic word» Valy« in respect to Valayat (philia) and Velayat (politeia) in correlation with together as interiority (boţun) and manifestation (zohur) of one another and thus not in separation manner with each other. Since as it will be followed the origin of most misunderstandings in this subject refers to such separation between these two meanings of the word» Valy« and to be adopted them as equivocal, if we hold them relevant in respect of both letter and meaning such as in hikmat and Islamic philosophy is done, the feature of the matter will be changed and then it will appear for us some unfoldings on understanding of the meanings of the verses of Quran (included 59 of An-Nissaa and 55 of Al-Ma 'idah) and the respective revayat.
This inquiry will also show that the famous view of Fakhr al-din Razi concerning knowledge as the category of relation cannot be considered as so-called the relation-possessed attribute in the soul of the knower and thus his conception seems to be referred just to mere relation that of course which in turn needs an independent inquiry in his philosophical and theological woks.

The early writings of Plato center based on a kind of knowledge which its object is moral virtues. According to the epistemology of these writings, theory is tied up with practice; since in its perspective, being aware of the moral virtue makes one moral and being ignorance of it causes immorality. Human’s will is subordinate to knowledge as well, so that when someone knows the goodness, she/he wants it; therefore, no one does wrong willingly. Furthermore, human’s prosperity depends on knowledge; for worldly enjoyments are good only if they are used in the right way, and it is knowledge that shows the right use of them. Even moral virtues without knowledge are not true ones. Thus, knowledge is the principal condition of attaining virtue and prosperity. In the above-mentioned writings, Socratic method of dialectic is examined, and it is concluded that this method hardly ends up in knowledge. However, the way of dialectic makes philosopher’s life and existence inseparable form her/his philosophy.

On the basis of the normativity of belief thesis, there is a normative relation between belief and its content. The normative relation is typically formulated by a norm which is called "the norm of belief" in the literature such that "one ought to believe that p if and only if p is true" (Shah 2003, 2009). My focus in this paper, concerns an argument regarding the normativity of belief thesis which is called "the no norm argument" developed by Gluer and Wikforss (2009, 2010, 2013, 2015). On the basis of the argument, Gluer and Wikforss claim that the norm of belief does not have the role of guidance for the act of belief formation. On this ground they conclude the implausibility of the normativity of belief thesis. The key aim of the present paper is to criticize Gluer and Wikforss's claim. To this aim, after considering the normativity of belief thesis, I will specify the scope of actions which is constrained by the norm of belief. After criticizing Gluer and Wikforss's claim, I will end the paper by an analysis of following the norm of belief on the basis of the normativity of belief thesis.

In Baudrillard’s view, the post-modern approach - with the dominance of codes, signs and replacing production with consumption in people’s daily life - has started a new process, which has not only resulted in the failure of contemporary man’s motto of individuality and developing opportunities for presenting his demands, but also, in this atmosphere, which is saturated with signs from media; art, politics, religion and economics, as separate and concrete areas, have lost their outer reality and have disappeared in the horizon of media’s dominance together with the concept of subject. According to Baudrillard, this approach is in the shape of game and is made up of general concept of art. With this difference, that art is no longer defined as a realm separate from politics, religion and economics, art is, in a general sense, transmuted into a style and method, in light of which, ugly and beautiful, good and bad, right and wrong are departed from their references (authorities) such as ethics, religion, economics and work of art and pass out in the end of the route together with the concept of subject.