understanding

The role of food and its quality on human body and soul has been emphasized in religious and scientific sources. According to Mulla Sadra's unifying theory about the relationship between the soul and the body based on the essential movement and the theory of the unification of science and the world and the known, investigating the relationship between nutrition and knowledge in humans requires an interdisciplinary research. This article has been studied with a descriptive, analytical and comparative method to investigate the view of transcendent wisdom about the powers of the soul and its relationship with the physical powers and the function of the perceptive apparatus and the formation of knowledge and, accordingly, the impact of knowledge on the behavior and personality of a person. For this purpose, we have looked at some findings of old and new medicine about the relationship between the quantity and quality of food on human temperament, soul and emotions and we have concluded that in Sadra's anthropological opinions, due to the way the soul and body are related and their unity, nutrition and type It has a direct and effective effect on memory and intelligence from the point of view of nasuti and malakuti, and it indirectly affects the acquisition of knowledge and its levels, as well as mental health and morals, and vice versa, human mental health

Possibility of knowledge and its essential nature, often in response to skeptics who denied its attainability. The central issue in these discussions has been identifying the key components of knowledge. The traditional view, rooted in Plato's thought, defines knowledge as "justified true belief." While this perspective dominated Western epistemology from ancient Greece until the 20th century, some scholars have argued that knowledge alone is insufficient to capture the full range of human cognitive capabilities. Instead, they have emphasized the concept of "understanding."
This study aims to differentiate understanding from knowledge, presenting them as distinct cognitive capacities that address different aspects of human curiosity and intellectual engagement. Using a descriptive-analytical method with a critical approach, the research demonstrates that understanding is neither equivalent to knowledge nor a subset of it. The key argument is that, ontologically, understanding is non-transferable, whereas knowledge is transferable.

The main problem of philosophical hermeneutics is the problem of understanding. Understanding is determined in what context, how, and by what components. Gadamer explains these influential components by emphasizing tradition and history, and emphasizes the plurality of understanding by expressing the ontological characteristics of human understanding. From this perspective, subjectivist and non-pluralist approaches are denied. In this article, we aim to examine, based on the characteristics of the understanding process in Gadamer's hermeneutic approach, namely historicity, pluralism, eventfulness, practicality, and linguisticity, its relationship and proportion with political totalitarianism and pluralism, and to assess the possibility of convergence or incompatibility of the foundations of philosophical hermeneutics with political pluralism as a pluralistic political approach and divergence or compatibility of philosophical hermeneutics with political totalitarianism as a non-pluralistic political approach. Although Gadamer cannot be considered a full-fledged political philosopher, it is possible to examine political systems and their epistemological foundations based on his hermeneutic approach and evaluate the relationship between them.

Comparative theology, as a new approach in theology, seeks to have a constructive encounter with other religions and theologies and to gain a deep understanding through comparison and adaptation with other religions. The process of this understanding in comparative theology requires a proper context and strategy to achieve the goals of this theology. In this paper, based on Gadamer's hermeneutic principles, the hermeneutic strategies of comparative theology are examined and analyzed. The result of this analysis indicates considerable affinities between Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics and comparative theology such as the infinity of understanding, the fusion of horizons, the game of understanding, the understanding of self through the understanding of the "other", the acceptance of prejudice as an integral part of the flow of understanding, and finally the enrichment of one’s theology through the understanding “other’s” theology. According to this result, the phenomenon of understanding in comparative theology can be explained based on Gadamerian hermeneutics. In general, Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics can result in the development of comparative theology and its achievements. Comparative theology, in addition to adopting the original and traditional meanings of religious teachings and rituals, is based on a dynamic understanding of religious traditions and also a hermeneutic flexibility of religious doctrines.

In this article, we are trying to deal with the characteristics of Dasein in Heidegger's book Being and Time in a specific and concrete way. In his book, Heidegger wants to show how man accesses Being / Sein. First, he raises the question of being and then says that everything is in the circle of being and asks himself, from which entity should we begin to know being? His answer is to start the knowledge of existence from the existence that questions existence. He calls that Dasein. The reason why Heidegger chose the term “Dasein” instead of man is to save man from the narrowness of previous definitions of man (such as Aristotle's rational animal or Cartesian thinking substance, etc.). He examines his intrinsic and real characteristics, such as sense of situation and understanding, i.e., finding new possibilities; language, which according to Heidegger is the house of being; and also refers to ability and unpredictability. He emphasizes that man as a subject does not have an unchangeable and fixed nature. Each Dasein is personally an incident that temporalizes itself according to the future. Dasein is not pre-determined by nature. He is a historical Dasein who identifies himself with his own self (mienneté) and explains his every behavior to the future. No matter what state a person reaches, he can still appear in other forms. He always has a pas encore (not yet). The fundamental character of Dasein is a condition of already “Being-in-the-world”—of already being caught up in, involved with, or committed to other individuals and things.

The concept of the thing in itself in Kant's philosophy is the element which deprives us of knowing the thing as it is in itself. Hegel, who believed that knowledge is limited by nothing but itself, had to eliminate the thing in itself in his Absolute Idealism and in this way make his concept of Knowledge absolute. Many scholars believe that he did so in the first part of his Phenomenology of Spirit, titled 'Consciousness'. In this paper, in contrast to other studies which are concerned with Hegel's external critique of this concept and what he has said about it here or there in his System of philosophy, we'll examine his internal encounter with the Thing in Itself as it is occurred in the first chapter of the Phenomenology of Spirit. In doing so, we will try to show why he believed that, if we pursue the process of sublating the shapes of consciousness into one another, there won't be anything like the Thing in Itself.  Then We will attempt to explain why his efforts are futile and why, even in the Phenomenology of Spirit, the thing in itself exists exactly in the sense that Kant meant by the term.

In the present article, we are faced with two phenomenological philosophers who, in two different intellectual traditions, namely philosophical hermeneutics and moral phenomenology, have referred to the concept of the Other as the fundamental possibility of the individual. The other, as an ontological and common concept in the thought of Gadamer and Levinas, is the turning point of the condition for the possibility of understanding and ethics. Focusing on the concept of the other, while addressing the points of difference and commonality between Gadamer and Levinas, this article will show that Levinas’s preoccupation with the other as a philosopher refers to the foundations of ethics, and the condition for the possibility of foundations of ethics is encountering the other. In Gadamer, the turning point is the determination of the possibilities of understanding in dialectical and dialogue-oriented relationships. Without the other, in Levinas’s thought, ethics, and moral matter, and in Gadamer’s thought, the process of understanding will not occur in the form of a fusion of horizons. Therefore, this article shows that the other is a common concept between these two philosophers, which both of them cannot avoid in their philosophical analyses of ethics or the process of understanding.

In the upcoming research, relying on the descriptive-analytical method, we are trying to answer the question that does the Heidegger's phenomenology of religious life have an epistemological infrastructure? It seems that the basis of the phenomenology of Heidegger's religious life is based on the understanding of Dasein from the reality of religious life and gaining awareness of the essence of religious life based on the mechanism of Dasein's understanding. Investigating the role of human existence (= Dasein) in reaching the truth of religious life in the form of Heidegger's phenomenological approach to religious life is the main motivation of the researcher, which introduces us to the epistemological basis of Heidegger's phenomenology. Based on the evaluation, Dasein is a conscious agent in confronting religious life, and the knowledge that is produced in this way is a certain knowledge that depends on the essence of religious life through the understanding mechanism of Dasein.

The focus of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics is the issue of understanding, and more precisely, the way understanding occurs in our encounter with the world as a "text". Gadamer tries to phenomenologizing the understanding, to express the conditions of the possibility of understanding and how it occurs. His provocative claim is that "any" encounter with the world, is mediated by language. The process of interpretation is the same our linguistic understanding of the world. The universality of this linguistic understanding of the world is to the extent that, even when language seems to be "suspended", we still have to take refuge in language itself to discuss this inadequacy. This is one of the "mysterious" aspects of human linguisticality. Another aspect comes back to the fact that language, like the world, never fully acquiesce to "objectification" and is not given to our consciousness as a unified whole, because language is preceding any understanding. The main questions of this article are as follows: By emphasizing the interconnectedness of language and understanding, Gadamer simply is trying to remind us the same long-standing claim about the relationship between language and thinking, or does he have a more fundamental claim? Does he, by focusing on the linguistic nature of human understanding, want to show us the limitlessness of the boundaries of language, or emphasize on its limitations? In this article, while clarifying the meaning of language and understanding and their relationship in Gadamer's thought, we have tried to answer the mentioned questions implicitly by emphasizing that the significance of language in Gadamer's hermeneutics is not simply limited to putting experiences into words, but this is the mere external and concrete manifestation of the linguisticality of our understanding.

The involvement of presuppositions in the process of understanding is one of the most fundamental issues of philosophical hermeneutics. In the opinion of those who believe in philosophical hermeneutics, according to the phenomenological view and analysis they present of the way of human existence, first of all, man is a being thrown in history and time, and secondly, he is full of understanding and perception; An understanding affected by the presuppositions that is not in his control and choice due to the historical nature of man. Therefore, in a philosophical research, with an epistemological approach and with an analytical-descriptive method, relying on the theory of reference to “the knowledge by presence” of Professor Misbah Yazdi, it was shown that in examining the types of human perceptions and the distinction between acquired and present perceptions, although a series of presuppositions in the process of understanding they interfere, but these interferences are necessarily at the discretion of humans. Thus, by presenting the analysis of the process of human understanding with the help of the method of referring to the knowledge by presence, the claim that understanding is not methodical and as a result, considering the involvement of presuppositions and its results as non-optional, such as multiplicity of readings and relativity, was invalidated.

Nowadays, we have to rely on experts in many theoretical and practical matters. We consider them reliable and rely on them. To justify many of our beliefs, we have no other reason but the testimony of experts. Nonetheless, to trust the experts, it is necessary to recognize them and know their distinctive characteristics. In doing so, epistemologists proposed some definitions for experts and expertise. In this paper, First, we will explain the truth-based definition and then the justification-based definition and describe the criticisms of it. we show that the best definition is that S is an expert in domain D if and only if S has more understanding and ability than most people in domain D at his time. In the end At the end, we explain the five necessary conditions of belief, coherence, ability, efficiency and time.

In all periods of history, human has been trying to "understand". In order to understanding the natural world, scientists first observe samples and then classify them based on similarity. To figure out the actions of people, the matter seems different. To achieve this, we need to understand the intentions of people. Because intention has psychological nature, there is always a concern from empiricists that it may not be perceptible by third-person people. To some extent, many human actions are perceptible from a third-person point of view, and this causes them to be the subject of scientific investigations (with common scientific methods). However, there are cases that show the understanding of human activities from the third person of view has limitations.Stephen Grimm introduces a type of understanding and believes that by realising the specific goals of the person being understood as a desired action, we will achieve a deeper understanding. In this article, an attempt has been made to clarify the discussed issue first by proposing and interpreting Stephen Grimm's point of view, and then by proposing the problems and explaining the ambiguities of Grimm's idea, as an alternative formulation, we will show that the agent's decision for understanding or not understanding the actions of others, plays an important role. Empathy is known as a psychological capacity that can be understood in a different way by simulating the structure.Investigating and looking deeper into this issue will help us to judge it better as a method or an idea in social and human sciences.

Philosophical hermeneutics claims that understanding is born of historical conditions in various ways and is necessarily affected by it, and with its change, the conditions of understanding change and are formed according to new conditions. According to Gadamer, understanding is subject to various historical conditions, such as the interpreter's semantic horizon, his presuppositions, and the applicability of understanding. According to Heidegger, understanding is subject to fore-Having, fore-Sight, foreconception, which are all aspects of human existence. Dignity determines how a person understands; These are the main form of subsequent understandings and they are also fluid and influenced by historical conditions. Understanding is always the result of the fusion of historical horizons and as a result, the production of new meaning, not the reproduction of the author's meaning; Therefore, it is not possible to reach the author's intention. The above-mentioned dignity and the factors involved in self-understanding cannot be considered and studied independently, because whatever is chosen to be understood, it is understood through the channel of these virtues.

This article tries to deal with this issue with the method of inferring the verses of the Quran and inferring from them and with a critical view.

The findings of the article are summarized below -What is obtained from several verses of the Qur'an is not a criticism of historical foundations, because the Qur'an has no entrance to these new specialized topics; Rather, the denial of the result of these foundations means the denial of the inherent historicity of understanding, and when the result is denied, the original foundations are also questioned. Different categories of verses with implied implication can the negation of the inherent nature of all the dignity of understanding, which in Gadamer's view has caused the inherent historicity of understanding. -The verses informing about the occurrence of education, which comes along with the mention of education, imply that the understanding has been realized in accordance with reality and is permanent, and it implies with implied implication that the understanding of fact has occurred without the interference of the historical assumptions of man and his historical horizon; While in philosophical hermeneutics, all understandings are necessarily historical. -All different categories of verses that indicate the possibility of knowledge are incompatible with the inherent historicity of understanding. -There are many verses in the Qur'an that indicate, contrary to the claim of philosophical hermeneutics, that man has the ability to look independently at himself, his mind, his thoughts and ideas.

Consideration in the verses indicates that the meaning of different categories of verses independently or by adding some rational considerations does not agree with the view of the inherent historicity of understanding; Rather, the opposite can be inference from the verses.

The hermeneutic function and rational interpretation of the teachings of religion with an ontological approach is one of the most basic functions of Mulla Sadra's philosophy. The main issue of this article is how to understand the teachings of religion with philosophical arguments from Mulla Sadra's point of view. Let's deal with the theory of the adaptation of the worlds and the evolutionary motion of the soul. In this explanation, true theologians, and at the top of them the perfect man, with the intuition of the fact that the existence of God Almighty is in the highest order of existence and all the worlds are various manifestations of his single existence, reach a higher understanding of the teachings of religion and other human beings. In proportion to their existential order, based on the essential movement of the soul, they use the sea of ​​truth of the Qur'an and the teachings of religion;But the true understanding of the word of the Almighty is only those who, as a result of existential promotion and union with the higher worlds, with the help of revelation, intuition, and intellect within the limitations of the material world, have been able to achieve a correct interpretation of the revelatory text. Correct interpretation begins first with the understanding of words (apparent interpretation), then in the next stage, the interpreter, by using intuition, establishes a spiritual union with the soul and the interior of the world, and as a result, reaches the esoteric truths of the sublime system. In accordance with it.

 In his Copernican revolution, Kant changed the centrality of cognition from the external world to the knowing subject. In this way, human mental structure provides the context of experience; And based on that, he acquires aesthetic and imaginary knowledge and finally reaches the understanding of the external world. Although Kant proposes this theory and goes as far as the schematism by imagination, it seems that his views are confused in explaining categories as pure concepts that are completely independent of experience, sense and time. According to Kant's doctrine, every concept and therefore categories must be referred to an intuition. But on the one hand, if categories are returned to sense and experience in any way, then they are not pure concepts of understanding; Although Kant does not accept it, he cannot explain his opinion successfully; On the other hand, if categories are pure and beyond experience and sense, then they must be referred to something; And Kant refers them to the "objective in general" intuition; But in this case, he is caught in the transcendental object; Especially, the characteristics that Kant enumerates for the "object in general" create the suspicion that the understanding perceives the categories with intellectual intuition from the "object in general" or in other words from "Being".