نشریه پژوهشهای معرفت شناختی
سال چهارم شماره 1 (پیاپی 9، بهار و تابستان 1394)

The epistemological elements in the educational programs have been always discussed among the scholars. In the present article, Collingwood’s epistemological view, one of the most remarkable philosopher in twentieth century, is discussed. The wedding between history and philosophy is the important point in his thought. This presupposition enables us to plan more active educational subjects as if the students encounter the several lessons in the historical context and recreate the different thoughts. Research method has been applied at this paper, is analytical and deductive method.

Philosophyof science, among Muslim philosophers, embraces certain priory and crucial rules which the discursive-real sciences must take them as their logical structures. On the basis of the rules, each science should have its own subject and follow in the explanation, the principles and rules of proof expand their domination in their determined boundaries, in their researches should intend the essential properties of subject as well. The later point has not been respected in the metaphysics and violated repeatedly by the philosophers. The subject of metaphysics is being qua being, and all predictions of issues must be essential accidents of the topic while many metaphysical predictions are not such. This methodological error has not been considered by most philosophers. Some others, representing certain solutions, having confessed and acknowledged this error. The most important solutions are two things: the first, the metaphysics has no specific subject. The second, the rules of the philosophy of science are preferable and unnecessary to be followed. The first solution which is the ancient one with a little revise has been accepted in this article as a modern solution. Accordingly, the different branches of philosophy which have their own specific and independent subjects and issues, in virtue of their method and basic issues, can be laid under general topic of philosophy as we can put the sciences under the title of experimental sciences.

Philosophical movements after renaissance specifically during eighteenth century have been commenced by Kant and continued by his impact. Then Aristotle’s philosophy has been forgotten for being non- critical and dogmatic. In fact, it is claimed that his philosophy elucidates the episteme by deriving the intelligible or quiddity from the objects. This philosophy does not need to have a research on the conditions of priori to the experience. It does not research, therefore, on the authenticity of knowledge and awareness through validity of such conditions. The present article illuminates that the Aristotle’s metaphysics is not based on the deriving quiddity from the external world, but it researches on the conditions prior to the experience by a specific method. For the conditions and principles which have been discussed in the metaphysics, are the principles of being qua being which precede the experiment. These principles and elements are hidden in the definition of quiddity. Since the whatness is combined of the form and matter, these principles denote to the world concrete elements and then insist on the experimental values. The substance, in this perspective, is explained as a priori ontology on which the epistemology is based.

The aim of this paper to open a new approach to the intellectual reconstitution of Avicenna’s scientific thought. In the other word, it is an initial path to detect and deduct Avicenna’s philosophy of science. In this article, after denoting to the place of science in Avicenna’s thought, the philosophy and method of sciences have been discussed. He, about the method, believes in a kind of pluralism. This pluralism must not be regarded as an epistemological confusion or riot and it does not lead to epistemological relativism. Finally, we have tried to elucidate the elements and components of Avicenna’s scientific method such as: the relationship between nature and supernatural, sense of form, the nexus of sciences, teleology, and priority of epistemology general and simple affairs.All together creates a coherent and universal epistemological order in which the science and philosophy will be harmonized.

This paper addresses to validate the mental perceptions and Ghazali’s levels of understanding, dealing with the departure point starting from his well- known attack against philosophers. The main question in this paper is that how much is the validity of philosophical reason when it is going beyond its own epistemological realm, trying to explain the religious concepts by its own method? Ghazali believes that the philosophical reason is not sufficient. For it is beyond the reason ability, therefore, the reason must be illuminated by the revelation to understand such issues. Accordingly, the reason is not an independent source of knowledge, if it wants to speak about the religious propositions; it will go beyond its own limitation. He begins with the certain science denying the philosophical reason determining the limitation of reason, explaining the problems of philosophers, theologians and sufis by delivering the criteria of episteme. Finally, he concludes the philosophical knowledge is not the instrument which can help us to understand the scriptures and it is not related to it, because the reason beyond its limitation will engage in contradiction and skepticism and cannot show the reality as such is. Therefore, the religion must be independent. As a result, this paper criticizes the methodical incoherency that can be found in the meaning of reason has been depicted in his works.

The later Wittgenstein and Gadamer believe that the understanding requires the function. Accordingly, the presence of other is given in the true understanding. Wittgenstein has said that the understanding of the specific form of life without the understanding of the other form of life is impossible. According to Gadamer “I” open up to the other dialogues, because the real dialogue will be possible by this opening up. Having private language is not feasible as Wittgenstein has said, since the rules dominating on the usage of words which explain the sensual things, are universal and social. We are learning and applying these rules in the society talking to each other. In Gadamer view, the language is an environment in which the both sides of dialogue can achieve mutual understanding. The characteristic of the real dialogue is that the both sides of dialogue must respect each other points of view.