مجله تاملات فلسفی
پیاپی 19 (پاییز و زمستان 1396)

This article is going to re-interpret the concept of event of appropriation in the philosophy of Heidegger. We recognized the books Towards a Definition of Philosophy (1919), Contributions to Philosophy (From En-owning) (1936-1938) and Of Time and Being (1962) to achieve this purpose.
Heidegger interprets the meaning of event as a thing that is belongs to me immediately in Towards a Definition of Philosophy. He interprets this concept as reciprocity of Dasein and Being in Contributions to Philosophy. And translates it as a field that time and Being present there in Of Time and Being. This evolutionary approach of Heidegger guides us to the meaning of thinking that Heidegger expressed in 1951-52 lessons.
This article express that we can achieve a new interpretation of the concept of Heideggerian event, when we put all interpretation in the field of the meaning of thinking.

Modern art proclaims a new epoch, epoch of suspension and release, the epoch called postmodern in public spheres. Post-structuralism is the thought of this epoch, the epoch in which man realizes his historical nature, and releases from Logos. Nevertheless, this release, contrary to the current conception, does not confront the life with pure relativism and meaninglessness. We want to see what would happen to the art in post-structuralism. In fact, the main theme of this article is "the art without Logos". In this article, by introducing and theorizing about “Linguistic Federalism” we would try to present a novel and different reading of art in post-structuralist paradigm. By laying aside Logos, commitment of art would charge to the "other". In this way, art is essentially committed, although not a metaphysical one, but a mundane commitment. In this article, by introducing and theorizing about “Linguistic Federalism” we would try to present a novel and different reading of art in post-structuralist paradigm. By laying aside Logos, commitment of art would charge to the "other". In this way, art is essentially committed, although not a metaphysical one, but a mundane commitment.

Judith Jarvis Thomson's "Defense of Abortion" is one of the most influential papers about Permissibility of abortion, So that after its publication in 1971 it has reprinted and criticized frequently. She uses the analogy as a reason for her claim and by relying on examples such as violinist, Henry Fonda, thief, two brother's chocolates and good Samaritan tried to prove her claim. In this article, one of her allegory namely the story of good Samaritan will be criticized and reviewed and her distinction between minimally good Samaritans and maximally good Samaritan as well as her distinction between law and morality will be challenged.

Analyzing any concept in Wittgenstein's thoughts has a strong relationship with his contemplation on "language". And analyzing the concept of reality is not an exception; especially because the reality is the closest concept to the language as a key element in Wittgenstein's thought. And perhaps it may be possible to pose the main question of his two periods of contemplation in this way: "how does language reflect the reality to us"?
In this paper I have tried to, by referring to Wittgenstein's intellectual framework, analyze the relativity of language, mentality (thought) and reality. And I would like to, by comparing the Wittgenstein who is seen in the Logical-Philosophical treatise with the second Wittgenstein who is divulged in the philosophical studies, to reconstruct the traversed route in the treatise and analyze the reality in a hypothesis and finally pose this question that "is it possible to achieve an illustration of reality in the latter Wittgenstein's thought from the functional hypothesis of meaning or language in the guise of function?"
This route ends in two different schools: realism and anti-realism. It seems that both attitudes are not adaptable about Wittgenstein and a kind of relativism in confronting with reality can be observed in Wittgenstein's thought which is largely semantic and in some layers it is also ontological but it never ends in extreme realism.

Joel Feinberg (1926-2004) is a groundbreaking philosopher in contemporary moral, legal, and political philosophy. He changed the way people thought about things, and his theory of “the moral limits of the criminal law” is the most influential theory in American jurisprudence of the last fifty years. He fulfilled the project that J.S. Mill (1806-1873) had started by introducing “liberty-principle.” Following Mill, Feinberg believed that political philosophy begins with a normative presumption in favor of “individual liberty.” So, he found most “liberty-limiting” or “coercion-legitimizing” principles “unreasonable” and “impermissible.” Feinberg analyzes with great subtlety concepts like “harm,” “offense,” and “paternalism,” and defends Liberalism. Contrary to “communitarians” and “contextualists” such as MacIntyre and Sandel, who criticize Liberalism for its abstractness and sterility, Feinberg’s Liberalism is a living theory built on the common values of a certain type of society and political culture, within a definite historical context. Having introduced Feinberg’s thought and his unique influence, this paper will endeavor to:1. Analyze the similarities and differences of these two philosophers’ views on “liberty;”
2. Analyze “the liberty-limiting” or “coercion-legitimizing” principles in their views; and
3. Compare their answers to the following basic and practical questions about “liberty:”
1. What is the greatest threat to the “liberty?”
2. Why should liberty be the norm?
3. Is “liberty” the first good?
4. Who is “right,” in the confrontation of two agents’ “liberties?”
5. How can we solve the problem of “bilinear nature of liberty?”
6. Is “liberty” “absolute?”

Has Ahsaei believed to Asalat-ol-Mahiah only or Asalat-ol-Mahiah and Asalat-ol-Vojood both?
According to the appearance of some Ahsaei’s words, some writers like Sabzevari has ascribed to him believing at the same time to Asalat-ol-Mahiah/ Originality of Quiddity and Asalat-ol-Vojood/ Originality of Existence both. They called it as the Asilain. However, was he really hold it? In addition, has he the same representation of “Asalah” as Mulla Sadra has? If they have a different meaning, could the writers insist on their claim yet? We will show here that Ahsaei get sometimes “Existence” and “Quiddity” as “Matter” and “Form” and in these cases he is become more and more close to Asalat-ol-Mahiah. Accordingly, based on his interpretation of “Existence”, we would find that he did not Understand “Existence” as a Gerund. It means that writers like Sabzevari could not accuse him to being believe to Asalat-ol-Mahiah/ Originality of Quiddity and Asalat-ol-Vojood/ Originality of Existence both.

Rethinking the tradition of western philosophy, Feminist thinkers have claimed the most important philosophical concepts in this old and long lasting tradition, such as reason and autonomy have been opposed to matter and irrationality, or dependence and whatever is associated with feminine concepts. They believe these oppositions and dichotomies have produced the masculinist concepts. One of these concepts which have severely been criticized by feminists is autonomy, which means being self-sufficient, self-governing and self-determining. They have criticized this concept which has been produced by modern tradition of western thought. And, of course, they have also searched this tradition to find the proper and strong support for the concept of autonomy which is in accord with attitudes of feminist. Reconceiving and rereading the western thought tradition, the feminists have found Spinoza’s philosophy as a great source and origin for their novel and modern views. Thus, they have developed a new and modern concept of autonomy: the relational autonomy. In this essay, I have explained how feminists have found Spinoza’s philosophy and his way of thinking as an important support for their concept of relational autonomy. Finally, I have posed a point which may be an instance of challenge to feminist's way of thinking about the concept of autonomy and if it could be, then it should be considered

Methodological naturalism is The most important feature of modern science is based on understanding and explaining the natural world is justified only by natural causes or use of any supernatural would like to recognize the nature of God and his action is prohibited. Now this feature as a template and Abrparadaym known to modern science. According to the Abrparadaym, each activity as science knowledge that he deserves, we need to follow the procedure. Conceptual and methodological naturalism to better understand the complex phenomenon of critical theorizing about religious science is methodological naturalism usually with some categories such as positivism or scientific naturalism confused. In this article we will explain that although methodological naturalism parallels with Rvshtjrby, philosophical and scientific empiricism, positivism, logical positivism, scientism, ontological naturalism scientific naturalism, but they are different. The purpose of this article Khltha avoid some of the country's space science in speech features.
(ÊÑÌãå ÏÞیÞ äیÓÊ)