فهرست مطالب یاشار جیرانی

This paper is a review of JavadTabatabee's book titled A Consideration on the Translation of Modern Political Thought' Texts: A Case Study of Machiavell's Prince. In this book Tabatabaee argues that two main factors of unreliable translation in the field of political philosophy are translator's artistic playing with words and his lack of knowledge about current and important interpretations of major works of political philosophy. In this paper we argue that Tabatabaee's claims are for the most part plausible. Nevertheless it seems that Tabatabaee ignores another important factor responsible for unreliable translations, i.e.translator's alteration of literal translation of philosopher's text by virtue of his assurance that he has a sufficient understanding of philosopher's meaning. Therefore we try to argue that even if we observe two main conditions of good translation mentioned by Tabatabaee, this will not necessarily lead to a reliable translation. Thus in addition to Tabatabaee's two main conditions, translator also must observe the literal approach in translating philosophical texts.

The present paper deals with the possibility of propounding the concept of “legal secularism” in the ideas of Marsilius of Padua. All commentators of Marsilius have detected a preliminary form of secularism, that is, institutionalized secularism, in his works and those of his contemporary scholars. This kind of secularism is opposed to the interference of the institution of the church as such in the field of politics. However, the same commentators have refused confirming a more advanced form of secularism in his works which is called legal secularism that is, one which is opposed to the interference of theological ideas as an official source with the laws. All commentators believe that this kind of secularism is rooted in the political philosophy of the modern period and, particularly, John Locke’s philosophy and maintain that attributing it to Marsilius is a kind of interpretive anachronism. Unlike the common theories, this paper aims to contradict this historistic interpretation of Marsilius’ political philosophy and, through analyzing his writings, demonstrate that his interpretation of faith as an inner and private affair can lead us toward a preliminary but clear form of legal secularism in his works.

This article examines the concept of secularism in the thought of Marsilius of Padua. Marsilius, employing two dimensions of the Christian theology (i.e. trans-political and political essence of the theology), presents an interpretation of the Holy Scripture that leads to “depoliticization of theological authority”. We call this theory “Institutional Secularism”; because it implies the separation of the church institution as church institution from secular coercive power. This article shows that the concept of secularism, in its historical origin, is inseparable from peculiar properties of Christian theology. In the first place, secularism is a “Christian affair”.

The present paper explores the mind-body problem in Homer, Plato, and Aristotle. Here, the writers claim that the opposing ideas of Plato and Aristotle concerning the ontology of body and soul is ultimately rooted in the dualist interpretation of the ontology of the soul in the mythical era, particularly in Homer’s period. In other words, the philosophical opposition between Plato and Aristotle concerning the ontology of the soul and body has its origin in Homerian dual and opposing interpretation of the concept of the soul. In addition, by substantiating this view, the writers have tried to take a small step towards understanding the relationship between the mythical legacy of ancient Greece and its period of humanistic philosophy, particularly that of Plato and Aristotle.

One major claim of liberalism in the latter half of the twentieth century was that it can be considered as a normative system due to value-based pluralism, a concept of its. The first scholar to introduce this in terms of a systematic thought was the English political philosopher, Sir Isaiah Berlin. Defining liberalism as a school placing negative freedom on top of value hierarchy, he argues that liberalism is inferable from the principles of value pluralism. He tries to confirm a logical entailment between value pluralism and preference of negative freedom in three ways, including, giving importance to having choice, opposition to utopia, and belief in existence of universal values. We will see how these ways fail to confirm such an entailment. The article discusses the possibility of inferring any value preference from the above mentioned relying on its anti-rationalist feature and decision making patterns.