self

The issue of self-knowledge, while ancient, has always been both challenging and paradoxical. In this paper, considering that the "self" is the central axis of Kant’s thought in all three Critiques, we will attempt to analyze the mystery surrounding self-knowledge in Kant’s philosophy. To this end, we will briefly examine the following points: (1) What is the difference between self-consciousness and knowledge of the "self"? (2) Awareness of something without having knowledge of it is one of the dilemmas of Kantian philosophy, and this becomes more pronounced when it comes to the "self." However, this mystery cannot be seen as a flaw in Kant’s philosophy, as in the discourse on self-knowledge, the self is always a logical step behind itself. (3) Finally, despite Kant’s claim that the thing-in-itself has no relation to time, we will explore the connection between the "self" as a thing-in-itself and time, which contributes to the mystery of the "self."

The extent of the strength of theories of self and body to explain the problem of "personal identity" can indicate the coherence, strength, and consequently the validity of these theories. Among the theories related to self and body that do not consider a substantial essence for the self is Hume’s bundle theory of mind. This theory argues that the mind is nothing but successive series of impressions and perceptions. However, if we were to say that the mind is nothing more than successive impressions, we would define the mind as something lacking stability. As a result, we will face difficulty in explaining the challenge of "personal identity," which requires stability. Advocates of the bundle theory of mind have proposed various components such as memory, contiguity, resemblance, and causality in constructing personal identity, based on the principle of sequence of impressions. In this article, we critique these components and demonstrate that the bundle theory of mind does not have the ability to explain "personal identity" under any circumstances. Ultimately a holistic explanation for the personal identity is proposed.

The attribute of divine knowledge has always been one of the most controversial attributes of God. The discussion of divine knowledge is divided into several types according to the known nature of knowledge. In the meantime, regarding God's nature as known, brings forward the discussion of God's self-awareness and the issues related to it. The history of this issue can be explored in pre-Islamic philosophies, such as Greek and Alexandrian philosophy, but at least since the beginning of the second century of the Hijri, it has been the focus of Muslims as one of the theological questions. At the end of the second century of Hijri, and before "Metaphysics" and "Theologia" were translated, the issue of God's self-awareness was seen in the statements of Imam Reza (peace be upon him) with a philosophical explanation. The Imam (peace be upon him) negates God's self-awareness by using the word "al-Malamah" (المعلمه). It is clear from the structure of the speech, the way of reasoning, and also from the other aspects of his (peace be upon him) statements, that only one kind of self-awareness has been deprived of God, and this is the acquired knowledge of self, which is realized only because of the presence of "another".

Talking about soul and body has always been an important topic. The most important issue in this context is how the soul, as a single existence, relates to the body, as a material existence. Various thinkers have proposed theories to solve this problem. In the present article, which is written with a descriptive-analytical method, we have discussed the theory of identity - as one of the most important theories in the philosophy of mind - and the view of Mulla Sadra - one of the most prominent Muslim philosophers. The conclusion of the research is that there are commonalities between these two theories, including the negation of essential dualism and the negation of the combination of a single entity with a material entity and differences, including the acceptance or non-acceptance of the existence of "self", the acceptance or non-acceptance of the singleness of the self, whether it is the same or not (including There is the sameness (a type or example) of each of the physical and mental phenomena, the return (reducibility/deliverability) or non-return (reduction/indeliverability) of mental phenomena to physical phenomena, negation or acceptance of mental causality.

Man and his type of encounter with existence have a very high importance and place in Shariati's thought. Basically Shariati's ontology and anthropology are in strong connection with each other. Therefore, we can ask what view Shariati's ontology presents about man and his relationship with "other"? The result is reaching the duality of monotheism and contradiction, as the most important unsolvable problem in Shariati's ontology. This issue cause’s dialectics to prevail over Shariati's thought. The centrality of the dialectical movement in Shariati's ontology forces him to equate man with rebellion and encounter with popular religion and the modern world, and this subject of "being in the world" puts man under the shadow of the passion for liberation and destroys the possibility of the desirable encounter with “other”. Shariati sometimes provides discontinuous possibilities that indicate the human subjectivity and a favorable attitude towards "the other", But in the whole of his thought system, these possibilities collapse and in the best situation, the ideal encounter with the other will be an unformed situation in his thought.

Aristotle assumed Praxis as a comportment with beings which differs from both production and Theoria. Praxis as true action means doing for the sake of doing and not for an end out of the action itself. In the case of the theoretical attitude toward beings Aristotle differs it from Praxis due to the autonomy Theoria carry with itself. Although near Heidegger the Aristotelian conception of action could be appreciated as a pathway to his own project in Being and Time but it is still in need of making clear the relation between self and world. to accomplish the task, we examine the non-representational attitude of Dasein to world, as its own constituting moment, which forms it in projecting own possibilities. We attribute reflection, the term coined by Heidegger, to how Dasein, without representing the self as a logical-formal possibility of his activity, comes to itself in his world-forming transcendence which is called here Praxis.

Anthropological views are considered the most basic and influential views of philosophers in any philosophical system; Because the goal of philosophy is nothing but the perfection of man in his theoretic and practical course. Sadra's anthropological model - with its fundamental differences from the previous models, based on principles such as: originality of existence, gradual state of existence, ascendant existential movement and the union of the learned and the known - declares that the human soul is a physical, dynamic, moving and  - the most important thing - It is self-made and willful. In such an approach, humans are a “single species” based solely on their original nature, and “thoughtful animal” is considered to be the common material of human kinds. The resulting part of this “substantial” meaning and originator of “special type” is "Nafs (Self)". The main materials that make up and weave the Nafs in different levels of existence are its perceptions, structures and habits. According to Mulla Sadra, due to the difference in perceptions and habits of different people, the difference between human beings’ Selves is an essential and inherent difference, and according to the second nature, humans will have different types and kinds. In this article, while examining Sadra's point of view about the Nafs and the type plurality of the human selves, we have explained and analyzed some of its important anthropological and eschatological consequences; Among them: the rational justification of self-improvement and self-care, multiplicity and difference of moral prescriptions for educating people according to the movement path of their Nafs, the basis of the habits for the truth and human personality as well as his afterlife face, the difficulty of repentance and changing the habits, the variety of paths with regard to unity of the way and  voyager, the multiplicity of evaluators in proportional to the existential personality of people, the multiplicity of heaven and hell in proportional to the firm habits of people, etc. Paying attention to the principles of Sadra's psychology and considering their coherence and consistency will show the power of explanation, justification and response of this intellectual system to many ambiguous issues about the Self.

The exposition of the connection between the soul and the body has long attracted the attention of scholars. In a beautiful narration, Imam Ali (peace be upon him) likened the relationship between the soul and body to the connection between "meaning and word". In this writing, we aim to explore this analogy as a hypothesis concerning the relationship between the soul and body, utilizing prevalent linguistic and semiotic theories. An analytical, rational and comparative approach is employed. Hence, the primary question of this investigation is: What are the foundations and shared principles between these two connections (the connection between the soul and body on one hand, and the connection between meaning and word on the other)?This research aims to unveil the general principles shared between word and meaning, as well as soul and body. Principles that are explored include unreality and reality, immateriality and materiality, stability and change, inner and outer aspects, annihilation and subsistence, the originality of meaning and soul, and the subordination of word and body. Furthermore, the transfer of ugliness and beauty between each of word and body, meaning and soul to one another and the layered nature of meaning and soul are explored.

In the Qur'an and Hadith, the self has a dual position. On the one hand, It is introduced as an enemy and suspect (It is called in this article :Self-enmity), and on the other hand, it has many positive functions and is introduced as a standard (It is called in this article : selfhoodness), and it is recommended to make the self the standard between ourselves and others. In this article, the Qur'anic and hadith evidences of the positive function of the self have been explained in an analytical way, and the name of selfhoodness has been determined for it. Then this dual position has been examined in detail. To solve this duality, the common philosophyzing is to divide the self into two aspects, positive and negative. But this way is not enough, because with this philosophyzing, selfhoodness is challenged, and in this case, the self needs a separate standard!The best philosophyzing is that acting against the desire of the self causes it to preserve its originality. Because the self disier to go beyond its limits and act against itself. The main achievement of this research, in addition to explaining of selfhoodness, is that the Self-enmity confirm selfhoodness.

Reincarnation is one of the issues that has received special attention from Muslim thinkers, including philosophers, theologians, and mystics. What can be seen in the works and writings of Muslim mystics indicates that "reincarnation" means the return of the soul to the human body and it is impossible otherwise, and they have presented various proofs in this regard. Islamic mystics accept the return of the soul to the barzakhi body in the other world under the title of reincarnation and put forward reasons to prove it. The present article also aims to research the issue of what is the nature of divine reincarnation according to Allameh Hassanzadeh Amoli? In this research, these results were obtained: Allameh Hassanzadeh Amoli was able to establish between science and intuitive knowledge and by relying on philosophical and mystical foundations such as: the survival of the soul, the isolation of the soul, the union of science and action with the soul, and the relationship between the body and the soul; Explain the reincarnation of Malkuti and Ahadi Syriani well. Therefore, according to Allameh Hassanzadeh Amoli, the nature of earthly reincarnation is the result of carnal possessions and acquired or acquired forms. Also, he believes in the royal reincarnation of Ahadi Syriani, based on the authority of the soul to create exemplary bodies, which is called Abdal in mysticism.

Purgatory world has been one of the fundamental religious teachings that has been debated and talked about a lot in different aspects of theological, philosophical and mystical points of view since long ago. Ibn Arabi divides Purgatory world into two realm; descending section (the distance between the World of intellect and Natural Objects) and ascending realm (Purgatory world after death). He believes that the ascending purgatory is physical like the corporeal world, but unlike this world is empty of any material or elemental mass, and only contains the material attributes and supplies such as appearance, limit, quantity, quality and Accidents. He believed that this world is made of a Substance that on the one hand is similar to the material Substance and on the other hand is similar to intellectual Substance and is a genuine existence in which any inconceivable gets conceivable. Another property of the Purgatory world is that anything that is potential in human soul in this world will get actual in the purgatory world. All Accidents will be self-reliant in the Purgatory World. In Ibn Arabi's opinion quality of possession of the soul over the Purgatory body is that soul thoroughly possesses the Purgatory body like that of material body; the soul in Purgatory world possesses the body Voluntary while the soul in this world possesses the body forced and natural.

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?

One of the topics in the philosophy of mind is the discussion of "I", which philosophers have referred to in various interpretations as "The self", "personal identity", "ego", "soul" and "spirit". Philosophers' different theories about the existence and even the nature of this seemingly simple and obvious have turned it into a philosophical problem. Galen Strawson is a physicalist who has addressed this issue by interpreting “The self”. On the one hand, he believes in the existence of the "empirical self", but on the other hand, he denies such qualities as Long-term persistence, personality, and agency, which seem to be essential to the meaning of the "I". The present paper tries to address, by an analythical-critical method, the question of how Strawson believed in the existence of the "I" despite the non-acceptance of these three characteristics. In this regard, first Strawson's view on the nature and existence of the "I" is analyzed, and after evaluating his view, it is concluded that the elimination of these three characteristics is due to weaknesses such as adopting a physicalist basis, a phenomenological method, and a purely mental view of the "I", confusion of the two positions of Truth and proof and his weakness in explaining the nature of unity over time.

In managing the crisis of the Covid-19 pandemic, what is most heard is the emphasis on keeping your distance from the others. But whether this spacing could make changes over time in the usual behavioral norms? Could we reconstruct and renovate this various broken rules and norms which like narrative plots had the role of unification?  In this paper, we would analyze the crisis of the relation of the self to the other within this situation. We explain Ricoeur's epistemological approach towards the relation of the self to the other in the light of the concepts of ethics and social responsibility. Then, on the bisis of Ricour's theory of practical wisdom, we try to show some possibilities for encountering the crisis of this relationship in the pandemic situation. By grafting the concept of law onto the ethics through the practical wisdom, we obligate oneself to the order of political institution as an interior command which is the call of conscious. This call is an ethical order from the others within us. It could arise the hope that people and political institutions cooperate with each other to pass the current crisis.

The subject of "self" and "other" in a one sense expresses the controversies of subjectivism-empiricism in contemporary Western philosophy. In these controversies sometimes the subject of the "other" was focused and sometimes neglected and even the tendency of dominated on it was provided, but with the emergence of existentialism, the subject of the "other" and emphasizing its role in recognizing the "self" was raised. Although existential philosophers have an ontological attitude to another subject, but the subject of the "other" and the encounter the "self" with it, have no explicit formulation in their thinking, while formulation the encounter of "self" and "other" can provide clear teachings to defend a desirable relationship between these two sides. In this article, it is assumed that Martin Buber's thought, although in the continuation of the existentialism was raised, but he’s thought by uses of another philosophical branches and by Jewish mysticism, and with establishment the “dialogical philosophy”, presents explicit formulation for the desirable encounter of "self" and "other". This article tries to offer the theoretical model based on Buber's views by investigating different approaches to the relationship between "self" and "other" in order to examine the possibility or lack of coexistence and originality of "other" in knowing "self" in a thinker's mind.

The main purpose of the present study is to investigate the effect of the 'other presence' on the 'meaning of life' in the thought of Mawlana Jalaluddin (Rumi), which has been addressed with a descriptive-analytical approach. Rumi's thought, in the mystical position of the Sufi sect, is essentially a non-separatist and unifying approach. The basis of his thought does not completely reject the presence and influence of the 'other' which is called 'another' in Eastern mystical thought, but it considers the level of matter as meaning. Rumi considers the other presence intertwined in finding and realizing the meaning of a relative life and in close connection with the love of God. By another classification of 'Heaven other' and 'Hell other', he has clarified his opinion and explained the central offer of his reflections on the relation between the meaning of life and the presence of the other in such a way that only in a romantic relationship with heaven other, the most original meaning of life is realized. Regarding the meaning of life, Rumi goes beyond the limits of naturalistic thought and agrees with the approach of meaning discovery. Finally, the culmination of the connection between the meaning of life and the presence of the other in his belief is that discovering the meaning of life begins at the lowest level and manifests itself in a romantic relationship with the 'transcendent other', God, in its highest form. Rumi, by telling educational anecdotes and allegories in the form of poetry and prose, repeatedly warns man against talking and associating with the other and considers him a cause of misguidance and alienation from man, while self-knowledge and self-remembering is the first and most basic principle that man needs to know the other and also to discover the meaning of life. In the analytical course of Rumi's views on the subject of research, it is clear that in Rumi's view, 'meaning' is a real and objective thing that is present in the world and, contrary to the views of atheist existentialists, is not made by human fear and loneliness. Rather, there is meaning in life and it must be found. In this sense, he is in the group of those who believe in the theory of 'discovering the meaning of life'. Regarding the meaning of life, Rumi believes that in order to properly understand what the meaning of life is, we must have self-knowledge and make self-knowledge the first step in the search for meaning because it is only then that we realize our human value and status and manifest ourselves as the universe and God. At this level of knowledge, we are not preoccupied with superficial and transient pleasures, and we find the way to the meaning of life, which is to attain divine love. It is noteworthy that such a goal cannot be achieved without the 'other' because unity and oneness are absolutely impossible in the material world. In addition, our perception of 'self' is the result of the interaction of 'self' with 'other'. If we accept the 'other' as a subject like the 'self', we can experience his meaningful presence in life. Thus, the presence of the 'other' is an essential factor in the knowledge of the 'self' and seeks to know what the 'meaning of life' is. Mawlana Jalaluddin has also defined the types of relations between 'self' and 'other', not all of which are equally constructive, but 'others' are valued differently from Mawlana's point of view, and some of them may even be considered as the cause of damage and the cause of crises exist in man and society; like what was previously referred to as 'hell other' and Rumi also calls them cannibals and warns against associating with them. In fact, Rumi's other levels can be examined from two perspectives. 'Other' means other than 'self' and in another sense, 'other' as 'self'. Rumi classified the other as 'hell other' and 'heaven other' in a general way. The other is an identity that has forgotten the true homeland of man and the inner originality and has remained in the most superficial layers. In relation to the 'I', he also seeks the object and the possession of the ‘I’, and the relation between the 'I' and the other is constantly defined in the same cycle. In contrast, the other in relation to the mirrored 'I' seeks to self-consciously and transparently identify the 'I'. In this relation, the parties to the relationship do not seek to possess each other, but to fly to the other in order to open up to the world of meaning in their existential evolution. Thus, the meaning of light life is the result of relation with heaven other, and the meaning of heaven life requires the presence of heaven other. Rumi introduces 'love' as the meaning of life, which is the result of the romantic relationship of 'self' with 'other' of the same type, that is, heaven. The main teaching of his mystical thought is that loving human beings is both the source and the result of loving God. In other words, loving people is a manifestation of loving God. Love of God as the genuine 'other' causes man to enter into a loving relationship with the universe, to break down the barrier of 'self' and to reach beyond it. Therefore, for Rumi, love is the meaning of life and the driving force of creation.