فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال سیزدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 32، پاییز 1395)

This article is based on a comparative study of moral ideas of Aristotle and Tusi and similar moral views posted. As will be shown, moral values play an important role in achieving happiness. Happiness is the greatest good that everyone just for the sake of happiness, to pursue it.
Nasir such as Aristotle thought that ethics, the basics of their objective But unlike Aristotle, believed that human reason alone was not able to reach all of these principles, And in addition to wisdom should get full knowledge about the features of ethics should law was helping. And religion with the introduction of the hereafter opened our eyes to a life that is ending its details are not known by reason. However, according to Nasir religion to live in such a world , is necessary.
"Justice" as the source of human virtue and happiness, common thought is Aristotle's ethics and Nasir that in both books is emphasized. The source of all virtue and justice in their approach and not be part of it and to justice, prosperity will not be possible.

The turbulent social, political and cultural situation in Europe (and especially Germany) in the early twentieth century led young Heidegger to the question “what is the role and responsibility of the intellectual in society?” He maintained, in this regard, an important role on his own personal religious education, convictions and interests, because he believed that by creating interaction between religion and philosophy one can shape the unique intellectual and cultural heritage for the whole people of Europe, and thereby, play his own responsibility as an intellectual against that unfortunate situation. Accordingly, his response to this situation was Destruction Theology. It enables him to transform the past (i.e. the early Christian tradition) into both a critical measure of the present (i.e. uncertain philosophical and religious tradition of the west) and a possibility for the future life (i.e. authenticity).Therefore, the aim of this paper is to show that Heidegger’s solution to create a unique intellectual and cultural heritage, which eventually led to the formation of destruction theology, causes, on the one hand, an empathy or dialogue with the early Christian tradition and some of its great characters (such as Paul, Augustine, Eckhart, Luther, Schleiermacher and Kierkegaard) , and provides background, on the other hand, for serious criticism of traditional philosophy and theology (or what Heidegger calls the Onto-Theo-Logical nature of the west).

There are different approaches in philosophical justification of the influences of metaphysical or spiritual causes on the material world. According to the approaches of the the most Muslim thinkers, the deposited factors are influencing the on material world, but such influencing is along with the natural and material causes. Accordingly, is it possible to propose a methodological materialism in sciences that consider the experimental method in methodology of science to describe and explain the material world, despite of non-inclusivism of the existence in the material? This article is to prove the fact that, accepting the aforementioned principles, would not lead to a methodological materialism. Accordingly, neglecting the unseen world and inner world, and analyzing the material causes disregarding the spiritual causes would provide an incomplete knowledge for human.

According to Ibn-Al-Arabi, the bound world or detached imagination is a divine graded excellency in which both the abstract and material world are exemplified. Perception of such manifestation is possible through formal discovery; because the creatures that appear in this realm, have both the delicacy of abstraction and the ability to be tangible like material things. Perception of these creatures depends on the one’s proven talent and requirements. Nevertheless, such realism is not distorted by what was already believed or possessed and it is free. This opinion is against other opinions that either support pure abstraction of truth (such as Schleiermacher’s view) or pure mentality (such as Gadamer’s view). Therefore, the question of perception by example or imagination is subjected to recognizing and believing a realm of existence in which paradoxes come together and despite the success between subjectivity and objectivity, benefits from complete objectivity.

The subject of dividing the Quran into “firm and ambiguous” verses and explanation of the interpretation of ambiguous has been considered traditionally by the exegetes of the Quran and three subjects of firm; ambiguous; and interpretation have been widely discussed. The identification of the meaning of ambiguous has been mostly discussed and two opinions have more advocates among others. 1) Ambiguous means the hidden worlds like: the intermediate world (period between death and resurrection) and the Path and so forth. 2) Ambiguous means predicate attributes which apparently indicate anthropomorphism of God. The later is approved in the present article.
The word “interpretation” has been applied in different cases in the Quran, such as explanation of the mystery of apparently disgracious acts of Moses’ accompanier; explanation of the mysteries of applying the divine law; explanation of the reality of dream; unveiling all the realities of the Quran in the Resurrection Day; and finally the interpretation of ambiguous.
The selected opinion of the interpretation of ambiguous is to interpret the verse in the light of the firm verses. In another word, we leave Ifrādī appearance and focus on Jamalī appearance. When He states, for example, that we created the heaven and the earth with our hands, it means rejecting the partner in the creation of the world according to the indications. Or He states about Adam that I had created him with both of my hands, which refers to his creation. The instigators adhere to Ifrādī appearance and disconcert the minds of the people and propagate the beliefs on anthropomorphism of God, but those who have firmly rooted in knowledge have understood the reality of ambiguous verses and have firmly believe in both of them and are aware of their interpretations.

Ludwig Josef Johann Wittgenstein is one of the famous analytic philosophers of the twentieth century. He is in this belief that ethics and religion are beyond the boundaries of language. So, “whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.” His notion about religion in his early period of his life is concise and ambiguous. For this reason, exponents and commentators of his writings adopted two different positions. Some draw a religious picture of him while some others know him as an unbeliever.
The aim of the present paper is to explore Wittgenstein’s writing in the first period of his life’s in order to understand his stand point about God and religion. The main question of the article is what religion means from his view point? If religion is equivalent to the belief in God or the practice of religious virtues as believers know or is it something equal to ethics? Owing to the conciseness of the Wittgenstein’s writings, we have tried to use the ideas of other explainers such as Norman Malcolm and Cyril Barrett.

One of the issues raised in the discussion knowledge of God, is the existence of different stage in this Regard. Despite the unity and simplicity of God and apparent similarity of knowers in existence, however, it is a question that why this plurality exist? Mulla Sadra, according to his philosophical principles like copulative existing of caused to cause, ontological approach to knowledge and intensified movement of soul, believe that the all creatures and soul in all their levels know God. According to these principals, it can prove that the humans have an understanding of GOD in that levels they are. This understanding involves a wide range of knowledge as acquaintance and intuitive. This idea encountered with some problems that will be investigate in this article.