نشریه هستی و شناخت (نامه مفید)
سال سوم شماره 2 (پیاپی 6، پاییز و زمستان 1395)

God's arguments have been faced challenges in the modern philosophy. The most systematic assaults have been done by Immanuel Kant who considered the theoretical reason as incapable of proving or denying God; although in the realm of practical reason he postulated the existence of God. The purpose of this essay is to prove God in theoretical reason and to respond to Kant's objections in this regard. In this way, it is shown that metaphysics, at least minimally, is possible. The antinomies of pure reason, the proof of necessity and contingency, the ontological argument, and the connection between Aristotle's logic (also Islamic philosophy) and reality are some of the issues discussed in this article to achieve the purpose. Although it must be accepted that the reason must not transcend the experience in reflecting the pure concepts then it gives rise to the antinomies, Kant's argument about the systematic inaccuracy of any passage of experience seems unjustifiable.

According to eliminative materialism, folk psychology, as a common-sense theory about human behavior, is false; that is, most or all mental states that are posited by this theory do not exist, and hence its terms refer to nothing real. So, the eliminitivist believes that folk psychology should be rejected and replaced by scientific psychology. In this paper, after explaining the arguments for and against eliminativism, we will try to show that folk psychology is not a false theory, and mental states and entities do exist. Moreover, by making a distinction between knowledge by presence and non-presential knowledge, it will be shown that we can provide a further strong argument against eliminativism. Our knowledge to mental states such as beliefs, desires, hopes, fears and the like is knowledge by presence such that we find these entities without any doubt and immediately in our minds. So, rejecting their actuality by eliminativism is not justified.

The relationship between Corbin's phenomenology and the traditional phenomenology and his contribution in shaping the phenomenology movement are subjects of discussion that usually has been assumed; And there is no serious investigation in this area; although it can illuminate evaluations about the methodological value of Corbin's investigations in Iranian- Islamic studies.
In this paper, by concentrating on two fundamental problems of Heidegger and Corbin's thoughts i. e. "being "and" time ", we try to approach to a comparative insight about them. Analyzing Corbin's thinking about being and time in relation to Heidegger's thought reveals fundamental gaps between the two, which more than anything origins from Corbin's deep interest in Iranian- Islamic thought.
In this paper, after an analysis of being and time in the philosophy of Heidegger and Corbin, we compared those viewpoints and have shown that the differences between the two, originate from deeper methodological distinctions.

Open Question Argument is a turning point in met-ethics. Using OQA, Moore accused all previous meta-ethical theories of being disfigured by a fallacy. While his argument received a lot of criticism, some philosophers see a very important point in it, which has not been conveyed well. Gibbard, Raliton, and Darwall (1992) tried to change the argument to save it. They think Expressivism is the only meta-ethical theory which passes the new form of argument. In the article, we show that Expressivism is not the only triumphant. We talk about two different versions of OQA, the amended form and the new form. In the end, we claim that the only way to have Expressivism as the only victorious of passing OQA is to use both versions together, which means none of the versions alone can challenge all Expressivism's rivals. Using the new form you can get all theories into trouble except for Expressivism and Subjectivism. Then, we use the amended form to challenge Subjectivism too.

 “Liberty” and “Security” have always drawn the human attention to themselves. Hobbes and Locke, two main theoreticians of the "social contract", have taken steps in this direction. It is necessary to study the viewpoints of these two thinkers on liberty and security as one is known as the absolutist and the other is known as the father of liberalism. They were among the firsts who systematically wrote about liberty and security. This study, having being conducted by reviewing the works of these two thinkers and the works of other writers about their thoughts, aims to study the relation between liberty and security from the viewpoint of Hobbes and Locke. The question is what similarities and dissimilarities exist between the viewpoint of Hobbes and Locke on the relation between liberty and security. The argument we are trying to prove is that Hobbes views liberty and security as incompatible, while Locke thinks they are compatible and reinforcing each other. Hobbes suggests we should choose one of them, and consequently he determines security as more important and prefers it over liberty. On the other hand, Locke tries to maintain security as well as preserve the liberty, although he is fonder of liberty than security and considers it more important over the other.

The acceptance of the caliphate as the manifestation of lordship is one of the most important and fundamental goals and wisdom of human creation. It is the most important task of human being to achieve the Nominal perfection and survival to divine traits in behavior and speech. The straight line of worship is the way in which human beings, through the seeking help of scientific and practical evolution can activate the divine Names and attributes in their essence and achieve the position of the nominal, attributal, and actual annihilation which is mentioned as theosophical position. This article, at the beginning, looks for the semantic of theosophy. And while proving that this position can be satisfied by man, according to his existential layers, has cleared how this position can be achieved, according to the context of religion and the works of mystics, then has come to the conclusion that the analysis of the theosophical position has a profound connection with the monotheistic worldview, which is the key to opening many of the ambiguities of epistemic complexities in philosophy of religion. It is the fundamental axioms of cognitive science, resurrectional, and the science of guidance to know the truth of man and his mission in the universe.