نشریه هستی و شناخت (نامه مفید)
سال سوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 5، بهار و تابستان 1395)

Individuation in Aristotle’s philosophy arises as a fundamental problem when we understand the relation between form and matter based on existing interpretations, whether traditional or current. The present paper criticizes these interpretations and tries to present a new and different interpretation in comparison to the previous one.
Our interpretation is founded on the second chapter of the fourth Book and the book titled Zeta of Aristotle’s Metaphysics. The present interpretation reconstructs some of Aristotle’s fundamental concepts such as quiddity or essence and in general his epistemology and also ontology in a completely new method that uses different meanings of the word 'existence' in Aristotle. The present interpretation moves further than that to demonstrate that Aristotelian’s concept of the several senses of existence (based on our interpretation) agrees with the concept of new logic of functional expressions, and on the other hand, with concept of form insofar as it connects to science of genetics as we criticize this science. Therefore, in terms of this interpretation, we will clarify the hidden characteristics of Aristotle’s analysis of several senses of existence and its relation to totality of his philosophy and especially to individuation.
In the final chapter, we will demonstrate the traditional interpretation and David Ross’s analysis involved the irremediable problems.

Plato's theory of "Ideas" as the core of his philosophy, based on reasons and arguments (in comparison with inspiration and intuition) introduces Ideas as units that explain plurality and real beings and objects of the knowledge and necessary condition of it.
"Intuition" is immediate knowledge of Ideas cognition. Although Plato's description of intuition is not so clear and detailed, but it can be inferred in relation to Plato's doctrine of vision, that is the closest event to it, based on allegories, allusions, linguistics, and context indications. The consistency of these conclusions with the myth of the Soul's Cycles in Phaedrus makes it clear that the real intuition is different from dream and inspiration, and although it is independent from medians of language or reason in existence, it needs to them for being proved. Therefore, human’s intuition is common, essential, and reasonable; by the way it could be relative, and by criterion, true or false. Reading Intuition on the basis of vision, considering the causality of light, brings up some conclusions that the most important of them is the unity of the world.

In Cartesian philosophy, mind and body are complicatedly separate from each other, but they have the same root of unity. Contemporary philosophers and those after Descartes have resorted to different ways to solve this paradox. In fact, this issue can be considered as the most important problem in modern philosophy which is present in all aspects of modernism. However, Nietzsche’s answer to this issue is different. According to Nietzschean approach, this paradox is a Show which Descartes only virtually presented it. Descartes has to present such a paradox because body paradoxically acts as “something lost” and at the same time the aim of desire to find it. The present study is basically aimed at leading this idea to a fundamental criticism of “Idealism”.

According to Gabriel Marcel, humans have two kinds of relationship with the existence: “being” and “having”; that make fundamental differences in understanding the world. “Having” is used for referring to, e.g., “having an idea” and even ones’ own ideas, describing them in a concrete manner. In “having”, we are dealing with “primary thought” and an “I” and a “he” relation, which Marcel puts it against “I” and “thou” relation. In the latter, we are dealing with “being”. Meeting someone who is known as “he” means that we have relationship with him in such a way that he, as an object, is separate from us; the case is different when we meet someone as “thou”. In this relationship, we deal with “secondary thought” and it can be understood through participation and our living experience. Love, hope, fidelity and availability are categorized under “being” which is manifested in the existence of human. At the same time, these two kinds of existence are connected to each other: “being” and “having” are two levels of existence; "being" shows itself in different methods and “having” is the manifestation of “being”. In the modern age, the realm of “having” has been expanded and Marcel proposed two kinds of existence to return the expansion of the realm of “being”, i.e. human authentic experience. In this article the important question is: what is the relation between “having” and “being”? To answer this question, at first we should describe “having” and “being”.

Thomas Aquinas has occasionally worked on the beauty and art by adopting opinions of his predecessors, and aims to make a relationship between transcendental beauty and sensible beauty. He reaches the explanation of a kind of aesthetic perception by noting the definition of beauty and its components. In this paper, the author tries to approach the issue of artist’s imitation in artistic creation from divine deeds along with explaining his viewpoint about world and natural beauty. He finally considers this imitation as the continuation of innovative divine creation by artist.

Emmanuel Levinas is one of the most important philosophers in the twentieth century. This is because of the fact that he has been an influential figure in development of post- structuralism in the French culture. He also has an ambivalent attitude to phenomenology: he is one of the first pupils and first interpreters of Husserl and Heidegger; however, he has put forward numerous critics on Husserl and specially Heidegger in his books such as totality and infinity. This article argues that the reason for his reproach and separation from phenomenology lies in his effort to scrutinize the concept of infinity. Starting from this point, Levinas has reconsidered numerous taken-for-granted views about language, knowledge, ordinary communication and subjectivity. Other, face and such concepts, which are central to Levinas’ works, are offspring of his engagement with infinity. What is common between them is that they impose on subject responsibility and shame about what she has done toward the other. This shame and responsibility toward the other arise from the desire for infinity and movement in his direction. Levinas believes human subjectivity is first of all an endless responsibility towards the other. Responsibility towards the other and desire to infinity, which are identical in Levinas’ view, are the basic terms of ethical experience.