مهدی میرابیان تبار

The development of Hegel’s political philosophy is a direct consequence of his struggle with the previous philosophers. Among them, Fichte’s political philosophy, especially his conception of the ‘natural right’, is an important issue for Hegel. Hegel’s critique of Fichte’s political philosophy has been formulated in his 1802 essay ‘On the Scientific Ways of Treating Natural Right’. While Hegel’s critique not entirely successful to unreliable Fichte’s political philosophy, it raises some problems for Fichte’s conception of the natural right. This paper has concentrated on Hegel’s 1802 essay in order to assessment of his critique of Fichte.

The concept of recognition, borrowed from Fichte, has undergone considerable modifications in Hegelian thought. It played a significant role in establishing Hegel’s own philosophy and theory of mutual recognition as an intersubjective and social relation. In order to explain Hegel’s approach to the concept of recognition, we need first of all to assess the place of this concept and its importance in Fichte’s philosophy. This task enables us to find out some differences in Hegel’s and Fichte’s attitudes and get closer to the true sense of recognition in Hegel’s system of philosophy. This article consists of three major parts: first of all, it is going to concentrate on the problem of freedom and autonomy in German Idealism especially in Kant. Secondly, it checks out the problem of consciousness of freedom from a Fichtean point of view. And finally, it talks about Fichte’s influence on Hegel which led to formation of the concept of recognition particularly in Jena period.

Immanuel Kant, the influential philosopher of modern time, has been regarded as a turning point in the history of western thought. His critical views indicate his great and precise attempts and make him one of the best thinkers of the modern era. In recent years, there has been increasing attention from thinkers and experts in various fields towards Kant's views which shows the significance of this philosopher.Kant has influential works in both epistemology and ethics and as a result his works are regarded as one of the most coherent and systematic works among scientists. Thus, to appreciate his views in ethics and religion, one should master his other ideas in the field of epistemology and philosophy of science as well.As it is inferred from his views in ethics, Kant supports deontological theory in ethics. In short, he believes that only acts that are done to fulfill a duty and task are counted as moral and the ones done because of the doer's interest or willingness cannot be valuable or ethical. In this essay I will try to explore the development of Kant's views and the way he ended up to this theory in ethics. Also, I will try to clarify the question that whether or not he was really in favor of deontology. At the end the relationship between his ideas regarding epistemology and ethics will be briefly discussed.

Knowledge is located in the conceptual cycle of indefinable. Nothing has been so impressive in expanding the ambiguity and darkness of a subject matter as clear as the definition of knowledge attempted by philosophers. On account of such difficulties, most philosophers have cared for the content of knowledge rather than defining it. According to the ideas of a lot of western philosophers, knowledge is always unintelligible; therefore, they believe that talking over knowledge without source is something meaningless.But in mysticism the subject is totally vice versa. In pure and supreme mystical experience, the notional application of intelligibility about such events is not logical and justified because a number of mystics use the word knowledge as an indication to the experience that lacks any intelligible content. Thus, in order to take the claims of mystics into account, we should dedicate some space for knowledge in out definition of knowledge which only the mankind can firmly stand on his knowledge without any content. The present paper endeavors to clarify such claims by mystics.

Structuralism school was practically converted into a flowing and highlyfollowed attitude in the Gnostic philosophy with the article titled language,cognition, and Gnosticism published by Steven Cats, American philosopher andtheologian. It is possible to refer the background of this school back to Kant sinceeven the structuralists themselves including Cats believe that the idea ofstructuralism owes to him. Structuralism is a philosophical approach in the field ofGnosticism and Gnostic studies in which major discussions are associated withvarious Gnostic traditions. Structuralism rejects any hekmat in the name ofkhaledeh hekmat and naturally it assumes any comparative studies in the field ofphilosophy and Gnosticism impossible. This paper endeavors to address andcriticize the main claims of structuralism to the possible extent.