فهرست مطالب مالک حسینی

Heidegger was greatly influenced by pre-Socratic thinkers. He has paid attention to the experience of these thinkers in examining the truth of language. According to Heidegger's interpretation, Logos is a "verb" that causes the creation of all beings. Also, all relationships between beings are gathered in Logos. Heidegger says that the words of these Greek thinkers come from Logos, and their thinking also comes from listening to Logos. Heidegger, along with the pre-Socratics, considers the manifestation of being as the essence of language. At the beginning of this article, Heidegger's relationship with pre-Socratic thinkers will be examined, and then the nature of language in Heidegger's thought will be explained according to the concept of Logos. Heidegger's influence of pre-Socratic thinkers on the subject of language can be analyzed on two levels; The first step is to pay attention to Logos in their thought and the next step is the relationship between Logos with Being, although of course the second step was hidden in the background of the first step and was derived from it.

There are three accounts of the problem of evil: (1) Logical problem of evil (The logical incompatibility between the existence of God and His attributes and the existence of evil); (2) The evidential problem of evil (Evil as evidence against the rationality of theism); (3) Existential problem of evil (Incompatibility between religious beliefs and a person's lived experience). The most important defenses proposed in contemporary Islamic philosophy (taken from the thoughts of Tabatabai and Motahhari) against the logical problem of evil are: (1) Evil is not real and is something imaginary; (2) Evil is of non-existence; (3) Evil is something relative; (4) The existence of a creature that its good is more than its evil is necessary; (5) The matter is the source of the evil; (6) The existence of evil is necessary for the existence of good; (7) The existence of evil is necessary for perceiving the good; (8) Evil is the result of not having a holistic look at the world; (9) Evil is the result of looking at the world from a human perspective; (10) Evil is the result of human free will. However, the modern philosophy of religion has raised strong moral objections to traditional defenses and theodicies, including contemporary Islamic philosophy. Accordingly, these defenses: (1) Somehow defend and legitimize the evil; (2) Have a passive and inactive position on the evil; (3) Have an instrumental look at the human and his suffering; (4) violate human autonomy; (5) Neglect the variety of psychological traits of human beings, and overlook the extent, diversity, and dispersion of sufferings; (6) Neglect the suffering of animals, children, and disabled people. Investigating these criticisms necessitates the need to modify, complete, invent and present new types of defenses in Islamic philosophy, ones that pay special attention to the practical aspect of evil.

Mental obsession‒mostly considered as an illness or as a neurosis‒ consists of repeated, compulsive, unstoppable thoughts causing severe anxiety, and often leads to obsessive actions like washing hands or body, checking, counting, doing some ritual, and so on. In psychology, these thoughts are supposed to be absurd and completely irrational; so in cognitive therapy sessions, psychologists try to reveal their irrationality for patients. In a similar way, psychiatrists tend to block these thoughts’ way to the patient’s mind, by prescribing different drugs. Free from psychiatrical or psychological approaches, this article, taking a philosophical one, conducts an analysis of mental obsession, based on which, obsessive thinking makes one’s living abnormally interrupted and discontinuous, which means it is useless and inefficient; at the same time, it entails truth and perceives real details of things which can not be grasped by everyday consciousness. Therefore, obsessive thoughts are not unrealistic, though they are unpragmatic.

Language, the most important tool for communication among human beings is generally used in spoken and written form. Speech and writing have different features to convey a meaning; we intend to define these features and find out, generally in philosophy, what kind of priority speech and writing might have had. we are going to review the status of speech-writing and their characteristics in conveying meaning, in certain modern and contemporary thinkers. since Plato was the initiator of Logocentrism, firstly we are going to discuss the characteristics of speech and writing from his point of view. Then we discuss the matter in Rousseau, Saussure and Halliday; they, assigned a higher status to speech. After that we will discuss Derrida’s point of view; by his theory the metaphysics of presence, Derrida criticized logocentrism and by his deconstruction method he took step into the decentralization path. He disproved priority in dualities like speech-writing.

Although space has usually been at the center of architectural debates since the beginning of the twentieth century, it has never been the basis of linguistic and poetic theories, and as a result, architectural poetry has not been understood and experienced as a space language. Since the combination of knowledge in the contemporary period is of great importance, many commonalities can be found between architecture and literature.Based on the descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to compare the category of space in the two arts of architecture and literature and its specific perceptions, and relying on philosophical critiques of poetry and new linguistic tendencies, similarities and differences between architecture and literature. Criticize and adapt the concept of space. One of the most important findings of this research is that the geometric language of architecture and texture of traditional cities with existential elements such as corridors, porches, courtyards and other spaces is a clear example of the language of residence and poetry of space. Architecture and language are both mediators of our encounter with the world because we are always present in architecture, just as we are always present in language. This resemblance reveals the spatiality of both. The poetry of space is the experientiality of language, so the construction of a revealing space on the one hand, and experiential and constructiveness on the other, is something that poetry must learn from architecture. But what architecture needsto learn from poetry isto usethe language ofarchitecture in a way thatis more than architecture

 The perennial problem of evil, which includes a set of problems, was generally formulated in three ways: (1) the logical problem of evil (logical inconsistency of God’s existence and attributes with the existence of evil), (2) the evidential problem of evil (evil as evidence against the rationality of theism), and (3) the existential problem of evil (the inconsistency between religious beliefs and one’s lived experiences). The main apologetics provided in contemporary Islamic philosophy in reply to the logical problem of evil include (i) evil as illusory, (ii) evil as nonexistent, (iii) evil as relative, (iv) the necessary of there being an existing entity whose good outweighs its evil (or the necessity of little evil to perceive the good), (v) matter as the origin of evils, (vi) the necessity of evil for the realization of the good, (vii) the necessity of evil for perceiving the good, (viii) evil as what results from an atomistic view of the world, (ix) evil as existing only from the human perspective, and (x) evil as existing as a result of human free will. From the perspective of modern philosophy of religion, discourse criticisms were raised against the traditional apologetics and theodicies, which include Islamic philosophy as well. The criticisms include the following: (a) with respect to the proponent of the apologetics and theodicy: theoretical, subjective, and non-historical, (b) with respect to the nature of evils: abstract, essentialist, observer-related, and second-order, (c) with respect to the language of the apologetics and theodicy: non-tragic, (d) with respect to the practice of apologetics and theodicy: looking for professionalization and systematization. The present research considers the replies to the problem of evil offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, and analyzes and asses the above criticisms.

Method of the Research: 

The present research adopts a descriptive-analytic and critical method to consider the replies to the problem of evil offered in contemporary Islamic philosophy (ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari) as well as criticisms raised against them. It then deals with an analysis and elucidation of discourse criticisms of their replies from the perspective of modern philosophy of religion. Finally, it evaluates their criticisms and the extent to which they apply to the replies provided by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari. Moreover, it offers suggestions and solutions to revise or supplement their apologetics.

Islamic apologetics, particularly those of ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, tend to adopt a subjective-theoretical approach. However, if we say that apologetics have practical commitments or approaches as well, then a particular approach will follow from such an interaction between theory and practice (theoretical and practical reason), which in addition to dealing with theoretical problems, will address the versions that are more specifically focused on practical concerns and solutions to the practical problems of evil. Moreover, the apologetics provided by Tabatabaʾi and Motahhari are subjective and are often focused on eliminating the feeling of evil in the subject’s mind. In this way, social and objective categorizations of the object will be warded off. Furthermore, their apologetics are non-historical, which might undermine their efficiency and might not deploy any social or political act. Evil is something non-conceptual, non-absolute, varied, and situation-dependent. For this reason, we need to think of providing practical, objective, and historical apologetics.Allama Tabatabaʾi’s and Ayatollah Motahhari’s apologetics tend to be abstract and conceptual, rather than objective. They justify the evils not individually, but abstractly. That is, they do not engage much with objective evils and the realities of evil in time and place and its victims or agents. In this perspective, evil is no longer a problem that needs a solution. Moreover, their apologetics make a universal, static, and common essence for evil. However, evil is indeed situation-dependent, temporal, spatial, and highly varied. It thus seems that apologetics overcome the concept or ghost of evil, rather than the real evil. Further, apologetics are often observer-relative; that is, the ways in which theologians encountered the narratives of suffering and pains come down to the theological question(s) they give importance to. Such pictures, positions, and perspective demarcate the boundary and form a logical space within which people seek their replies. In addition, proponents of the apologetics use a second-order language, in the sense that they theorize about evils, and evil is described by philosophers and theologians, while the narratives and language of victims are first-order languages that can serve as models and might be inspiring, and in fact, effective novel replies may come out of their narratives. For this reason, we need to create a discourse that can collapse the prevalent discourse and be concrete, objective, non-essentialist, and non-absolute.The apologetics offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari avoid the tragic emotional language and are solely focused on eliminating logical inconsistencies. Apologetics can reply to the subjective and emotional problem of evil and at the same time sympathize, give consolations, and give meaning to the suffering so that they might not only be concerned with solving the theological and philosophical problem of evil, but also be concerned with solving the human problem of evil.The apologetics or theodicy of ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari tend to be a profession, chiefly focused on providing an intellectual system consistent with other elements of theology or philosophy. With mere focus on professionalization and systematization of apologetics and making theories about evil consistent with other philosophical and theological sections, apologetics might turn into a purely theoretical exercise and deviate from its goal of providing an answer to the person in pain and solving the problem of evil for the object. Furthermore, it hinders creative unproblematic answers, or those with a practical, objective, historical, concrete, structural, victim-centered, first-order, and tragic approach. Apologetics can have more liberal discourses with respect to philosophical and theological systems.

 An overview of the replies offered by ʿAllama Tabatabaʾi and Ayatollah Motahhari, and a consideration of the above criticisms, require a reform, supplementation, invention, and presentation of new varieties of apologetics in Islamic philosophy, which particularly takes account of the practical dimension of evil as well. In that case, apologetics will be more responsive, more efficient, and more virtuous, and will face fewer criticisms and objections. On the other hand, apologetics should be consistent and compatible with the data from the religious tradition on which the apologetics is based and with the data about the world. Accordingly, in formulating and constructing theories, it is illuminating to consider the data from the transmitted tradition, reason, and experience at the same time.

major part of Arendt’s views on “Will” is evoked in her last work, The Life of the Mind, which tends to hover around the history of the will, i.e., it is more concerned with the history of the will, that is, the experience and efforts of philosophers to write about these experiences. Arendt’s judgment about almost all of these efforts is that they have failed to reveal the right assumed to be intended for the experiences, as this failure takes its roots from biased thinking. Thus, it may seem a rational hypothesis to suggest that Arendt has accounted for a simpler explanation of the will. Although Arendt does not clearly explain her theory of the will, she provides a number of propositions about it, raising the question of whether these propositions can produce a coherent explanation. So the following questions are introduced: What is this power? How does this power relate to other human forces and to the “self” or the “voluntary self”? What is the relationship between this power with action? What is Arendt’s justification for his concept and spontaneous will? Why does Arendt emphasize spontaneous will via such power and does not let the will be formed by thinking? And finally, does Arendt succeed in producing a consistent explanation of the spontaneous will or not?

Boredom is one of the major dilemmas of the 21-century man. Some consider this the result of excessive leisure and some as a specific disease that may be afflicted by anyone. In Chekhov’s plays, boredom is one of the predominant features of characters; these characters are bored, and this boredom does not necessarily maintain a particular cause. Many critics deem this as a consequence of a special Russian lifestyle of that period. Decades later, Heidegger in one of his creditable theses considers boredom the existential feature of human which has roots in their Dasein. In fact, to Heidegger, boredom is specific to human’s individual existence. Heidegger defines boredom in three diverse levels which vary in terms of their depth, and he identifies the existential boredom as a boredom which is the deepest one and leads us to our existential origins. In this research, it has been illustrated that Ivanov’s boredom represents his existential boredom rather than the boredom which stems from a special Russian lifestyle or his psychological status; the boredom which suddenly enfolds him, cripples him, and subsequently exposes him to all potentials of his existence.

Poetic theories in contemporary times and in connection with them, contemporary poetry is influenced by structural linguistics or language as the subject of science. An approach to language that must be based on the theories of Ferdinand de Saussure. He defined language in a cycle of phonetic signals and meanings that remain limited in the mental imagination, and marked the beginning of the unifying space of twentieth-century formalist and abstract rhetoric. This approach to language and literary theory has an essential relation to Cartesian subjectivism, which is based on the separation of the mind from the object, in contrast to Heidegger's improvisation of man-in-the-world and the ontology of language, as well as the intersection of man and world in Merleau-Ponty's body phenomenology. Placed.For Heidegger, only where there is language is the world, and we always find ourselves in the space that language opens, and it seems that this is the phenomenal space that can be in the world-being of man on the one hand and in the-language-being of man on the other. To connect; Because language and the world are presented to us simultaneously, and the mode of existence of both is spatial. Thus, space and the perception of language as space, as opposed to the perception language as form, is the origin of poetry and the rhetoric of space, a theory in which poetry is not embodied in an aesthetic approach to form and content, but in its openness to the world. It must be weighed against man,

This paper seeks to analyse the concept of atmosphere in the philosophical system of Hermann Schmitz, the founder of New Phenomenology, as a fundamental concept for understanding his philosophical system; he uses this concept to transcend the duality of subject-object as well as to show the hidden realities and the foundations of lived experience of reality, by looking at how phenomenological analysis is revealed. Beside being used in sciences such as physics, meteorology, and psychology, the term also refers to the atmosphere as a concrete phenomenon; it is also an evidence of his understanding the phenomenology and reformulating it. This paper aims to show the connection between the concept of the felt-body (Leib), as the theoretical core of his work, and space and emotion as other key concepts in his philosophical system, by using the structural analysis of the concept and the phenomen of atmosphere.The result of the analysis in this paper shows the special place of the concept of atmosphere in Schmitz's philosophical system and its prominent role in establishing his method of New Phenomenology.

The concept of infinity in mathematics was one of the main points of difference between the four schools of philosophy of mathematics in the early decades of twentieth century and it is really interesting to review this puzzling concept from a historical perspective. Four schools, Platonism, Formalism, Logicism, and Intuitionism tried to have an acceptable justification on the ontological aspect of infinite numbers and sets but it does not seem that any of them succeeded in their mission. Among these schools, Wittgenstein followed his own unique way and with his Socratic Method criticized all of them. Most commentators and critics believe that Wittgenstein had a finitistic account in the last period of his philosophical work. However, this essay by referring to his lectures on foundation of mathematics, Cambridge 1939, challenged their views and came up with Wittgenstein's criticism of finitistic account.

Although Wittgenstein is known as one of the opponents of philosophical skepticism, some aspects of his epistemology in the picture theory of language and the philosophy of ordinary language have nihilistic features. According to Wittgenstein's linguistic attitude, these features are intertwined with his semiotics and metaphysics and are inseparable. This article examines the nihilistic tendencies in Wittgenstein's semiotics and metaphysics and analyzes the nihilistic features in his epistemology. From Wittgenstein's point of view, the sign cannot refer to an extraterrestrial world, to us, to the other, or to philosophical implications. He denies the possibility of research in metaphysics: in Tractatus because of the limitations of logic, in PI because of the non-application of metaphysical expressions, and in On Certainty because of inevitability of the linguistic frameworks governing doubt and certainty. Accordingly, in a logical space, nothing is really recognizable because cognition is confined to meta-logic. Cognition is completely relative, temporal, and contextual, because our world is only a possible world, and not just the world that exists. However, Wittgenstein does not say that cognition is absolutely impossible, but that cognition is a function of our logic and linguistic play, and not directly a function of the things or facts. Now, although logic and linguistic play are not unrelated to the fact, this does not mean that they reflect reality.

Mental obsession means repeated, unwanted, uncontrollable thoughts which causes unusual anxiety and makes one do obsessive actions, in response. These actions seem to reduce anxiety and be protective; However, not only they do not cure, but also they sicken more by acting as a self-attacking force: Obsessive actions do not come from a will to rehabilitate, but from a will to retaliate. Mental obsession is usually known as a disorder or desease, and it’s regarded and interpreted from a psychiatrical or psychological perspective; But free from these perspectives, this article conducts a philosophical analysis of mental obsession based on “ressentiment” and “bad conscience” –key concepts of Nietzsche’s Geneology of Morals. As a result of this analysis, what underlie mental obsession are instinctive forces that can not discharge themselves outwardly and thus, turn inwards; they create and employ a bad conscience, in order to attack the owner of themselves –the patient.

The relationship between phronesis or practical wisdom and Sophia or theoretical wisdom and, at another level, the relationship between ethical virtues and intellectual virtues are among the important subjects in Aristotle’s philosophy of ethics. Their importance is due to the fact that not only in case of the priority of phronesis to sophia, contradiction will arise between Aristotle’s teachings in Metaphysics and Nichomachean Ethics, but also because it seems that such a priority will eventually lead to a kind of diversion from prime philosophy and, hence, considering human being as the noblest subject in philosophy. Of course, Aristotle himself disagrees with this position. This paper mainly inquires whether in Aristotle’s philosophy priority belongs to sophia or phronesis, and what the significance and consequences of the priority of one over the other is. The authors argue that, although phronesis has a supreme place in his philosophy, it is sophia which enjoys fundamental priority. On the other hand, in Aristotle’s system of thought, eudaimonia or the highest human good cannot be attained unless through possessing phronesis and Sophia at the same time. Hence, it seems that, in order to learn about the ultimate goal of philosophy, it is necessary to further deliberate over the concepts of sophia and phronesis and their relationships with each other and with other virtues.

The concept of space has always been a fundamental theme and issue since the beginning of philosophy and abstract thinking in ancient Greece, and has been fundamentally change due to cultural-historical changes of spatiality throughout the history of knowledge. At the beginning of philosophy, there was a metaphysical question about the beginning or the first cause (arche) of all things, to which the concept of space, as a fundamental concept, is the answer. The main lines of philosophical discourse in ancient Greece, which flowed in the philosophy of Plato and Aristotle, were conceived in the context of Euclid's geometry and Ptolemy's worldview. In the modern era, Descartes, Leibniz and Kant tried to conceptually influence space with Copernican rotation and Newtonian physics. Finally, spatial imagery is challenged by the application of physiological problems through non-Euclidean geometry, and especially through phenomenology. Hence, the opening of phenomenological concepts in philosophy and other disciplines that focus on the concept of space could be of interest to researchers in the foundations of phenomenology. Therefore, the aspect of effort in this article is the descriptive analytical development of the opinions of three expert phenomenologists (Ernst Cassirer, Martin Heidegger and Hermann Schmitz) on space. These three philosophers base their theories on a critique of the (positivist) way of speaking on space. This approach taken by Descartes and Newton has been completed in recent times. In this article, we discuss the philosophical foundations of these philosophers. We discuss the space with each of these three philosophers in terms of a key concept in their philosophical system. Therefore, for Cassirer, we discuss the concept of symbolic spaces, for Heidegger, the concept of being-in-the-world, and for Schmitz, the concept of surfaceless space and felt-bodily space.

Whenever it is said there is no truth in place, this question comes up as to whether the truth itself does exist or not? Two answers are offered for this question. First, there is no truth other than the truth that there is no truth (modern nihilism). Secondly, there is no truth even the truth that there is no truth (postmodern nihilism). This paper aims at exploring the second answer by presenting examples of the claim in postmodernism. While pluralism states that there is no absolute truth, nihilism asserts that there is absolutely no truth and that the same truth is not true as well. Hence, postmodern nihilism is self-contradictory based on its realistic interpretations and self-reflective based on its nihilistic interpretations. Post-structuralism is nihilist from the epistemological perspectives because it claims that no cognizance can be generalized and adjusted to the world but it is probably not nihilist in terms of semiotics because it does not deny the principle of implication. Deconstruction is nihilistic and devastative for the authorship-oriented person exercising centralism. Post-colonial nihilism is also indicative of the destruction and disapproval of the identity of the colonialized lands as well as reflective of the denial of the identity of the minority races like the black. Gender nihilism engages in denial of gender and queer nihilism denies any sort of sexual, gender, and identity normality.

Evolutionary aesthetics is one of the naturalistic approaches to aesthetics in which a distinction is made between natural beauty and artistic beauty. One of the topics in evolutionary aesthetics is the study of the aesthetics of portraits (painting, photography). In this article, the aesthetics of portraits (paintings) are compared with the aesthetics of natural human faces (photographies), and we will try to elucidate the similarities and differences between the aesthetic criteria in these two areas. The research of Graham et al. on the aesthetics of the 1100 top paintings in the art world shows that the criteria for the beauty of paintings are somewhat different from the criteria for the beauty of natural faces. In this study, we first briefly review “averageness” as the main criterion of beauty in natural faces, and in the second part, citing an article by Graham et al., the aspects of deviation from the natural beauty in paintings are introduced and examined. What the authors of the article do not mention is the causes of this deviation. At the end of the article, an explanation of the causes of this deviation will be provided by resorting to scientific and evolutionary data.

The structure of Aristotle’s Science is deductive. It needs the premises that cannot be ‎deduced. Therefore, knowledge of the premises of science is an important stage in ‎scientific research. Aristotle, in Analytics and Topics, suggests induction and ‎dialectic for this stage. Aristotle's commentators disagree about this. For example, ‎Bolton prefers induction and Irwin prefers dialectic. Aristotle, according to Bolton’s ‎interpretation, is an empiricist; he starts his researches from particular sense data ‎and then discovers the general ‎principles of science by induction. Irwin believes that ‎scientific researches of Aristotle, as a rationalist philosopher, begins from special ‎kind of reputable opinions (ενδοξα) and then the principles of science are known by ‎a specific dialectic. This paper shows the differences between two interpretation of ‎Bolton and Irwin; observing the issue of the methodology for recognizing the ‎principles of science. Then, we investigate some important difficulties of their ‎interpretations and, finally, suggest some ideas for a better interpretation.‎

Polis or The City is the subject of classical politics. By examining classical texts such as History of The Peloponnesian War by Thucydides, the Politics of Aristotle, and new researches such as The Ancient City of Fustel De Coulanges and Polis by Hansen, we come to an understanding of the difference between “The City” (Polis) and “city”; that can be effective in our knowledge of the fundamentals of modern politics. The City was the most comprehensive and supreme form of political society. The end of this community was happiness (eudaimonia), the most comprehensive and supreme good that a community can attain. Unlike a city, The City had a social and political identity, and it was bound to the civil-political discourse. One of the main features of The City was that its members were a participant in life, and the happiness of its people was interdependent. Another essential element of The City, which links it to phronesis, was its question-worthiness. This question-worthiness is to show how phronesis or polis remained open to a critic. A rethinking of the concepts of Polis and phronesis and their relation today can provide an opportunity to reflect on the foundations of self-criticism, without being trapped in dogmatism. Furthermore, reflection on concepts such as polis is an opportunity to understand the roots of the Western democratic tradition and to achieve a deeper understanding of the institutions and values ​​that maintain Western culture.

The problem of mind-body is one of the most complex philosophical issues that, in the opinion of thinkers, if there is enough answer to this question, many complex and difficult philosophical issues will be solved, and human beings will achieve a comprehensive knowledge of the nature of mankind. In addition to the ontological and causal problems posed by the mind-body issue, this issue faces mental issues with important questions such as the nature of personal identity and its relation to the body and the brain. The inability of theories in explanation due to mental and physical characteristics has led some to raise the issue of returning to the Aristotelian interpretation of mind or soul as body form. In spite of the many criticisms that Aristotle's theory posed, how he faced the problem of mind-body it helps us, to answer questions about what constitutes mental phenomena and physical states, and how is the interaction of our body and mind. His views also have many strengths points in solving the problem of personal identity.

In the modern period, contemporary researchers of Aristotle’s philosophy have paid greater attention to the concept of prime matter, which is surrounded by a number of challenging discussions. In this paper, the authors have compared the two concepts of matter and potency, which are very close to each other, in Aristotle’s philosophy. Researchers have generally ignored the duality and separation of these two concepts from each other, while attending to their differences makes the explanation of the challenging issues in relation to Aristotelian prime matter much easier. One of such distinctions is the hypokeimenon or substratum nature of Aristotelian matter which prevents its confusion with the concept of potency due to its independence. In Aristotle’s writings, the terms hyle and dunamis (matter and potential) have always been used alongside each other, which has made it difficult to distinguish them from each other. However, it must be taken into consideration that this distinction plays a fundamental role in understanding prime matter and the related challenging problems, such as the quality of the combination of matter and form and the identity of new substance. Some philosophers, such as Ibn Sīnā, have paid attention to the various features of matter and differentiated them from each other. Among contemporary philosophers, Murtaḍa Muṭahharī has also posed some discussions in this regard, which are emphasized in this paper. An analysis of such views demonstrates that prime matter cannot be merely the same as absolute potency; rather, it is also a loci for receiving form. Hence, based on Aristotelian principles, the survival of prime matter is necessary.

Problem statement: 

Surprise, shame and guilt are considered to be human emotions. Reactions to these emotions are subject to biological and cultural issues. Looking at the Iranian art and literature in the context of history, it seems that one of the reactions of amazed and regretful people in the Iranian culture has been angosht gazidan, as it can be found numerously in ancient Iranian texts, ancient poetry, and painting. Since this reaction can only be seen in the cultural history of Iran, it should be attributed to the specific culture of Iranians.

The objective of this research is to find the historical course of angosht gazidan in Iranian literature and painting and examine whether this reaction has been derived from the behavioral reaction of Iranians.

 Research method:

This research applies the descriptive-historical method by reviewing library sources and documents to study the term angosht gazidan in ancient Persian literature and painting. It is tried to select and study at least one literary and artistic sample related to the subject from each century. The sample will be compared to the biographies of travelers about the behavior of Iranians who visited Iran during these years in an emotional state to find out whether the gesture is a literary figure or a behavioral reaction.

Angosht gazidan is merely a literary term. It has never had any real manifestation in the Iranian society. None of the travelers who wrote about Iran and Iranian culture in the context of history have mentioned this reaction in their behavior. The poet has benefited from this metonymy for exaggeration and its beauty. This has made it inclusive throughout the Iranian literature. The association between Iranian literature and painting has led to the depiction of this gesture and its objective presentation in the painting.

Evolutionary aesthetics is a naturalistic perspective on the evolutionary explanation of art and beauty. Stephen Davies is one of the most influential figures in this field. He, as a philosopher, especially in his book, The Artful Species, introduces and criticizes the various theories presented in the evolutionary aesthetics research program. But finally, none of them meets his expectation while he is believe that art and beauty are products of the process of biological evolution. Ultimately he concludes the skepticism is justified in this regard. At the end of the article, it will be shown that, contrary to Davies's view, adopting a pluralistic position is compatible with his critique, and also it eliminates the need for a skeptical position.

In this paper, the authors examine and discuss the different equivalents of the Aristotelean term of hyle in Latin, Arabic, and Persianin terms of their etymological and conceptual features. Moreover, they try to reveal the relationship between this concept and the concept of mother and female gender in Old Persian. It seems that the early translators of Greek philosophy, because of the conceptual relationships between hyle and mother in the writings of Plato and Aristotle, chose some equivalents for hyle which derived from the meanings of mother and female gender. This is particularly important because the concept of philosophical matter which is rooted in Aristotle’s philosophy and is commonly used today, especially in empirical sciences, is rooted in the concepts of mother and female gender in terms of its historical and philosophical background. This has prompted the early translators of Greek philosophy who were looking for near equivalents for the Greek hyle to consider this relationship and create terms which could transfer the meaning of this word correctly. However, this does not mean that in Aristotle’s philosophy, similar to some mythological beliefs, hyle indicates that the world is the offspring of the intimacy of male and female elements. Rather, it means that among ancient Greeks, including Aristotle and Plato, the female gender has been introduced as the receptacle of form in the birth of human beings and animals.