نشریه شناخت
سال نهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 75، پاییز و زمستان 1395)

In this article, we aim to deal with Hume‘s attempt to answer the issue that he propounds in his book, A Treatise of Human Nature. In this book, on the one hand, he criticizes moral egoism and maintains that the other matter of interest is the condition of realization of morality, while on the other hand, he declares a certain level of moral virtue (artifact virtues), as justice, from the beginning come into being on the basis of self-interest and by the motive of protection of private ownership which only in the passage of time have been named virtue. In this article, we attempt to demonstrate how Hume, in A Treatise of Human Nature, and in his other moral book, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals, with two varying narrations, attempts to show that these two views come together. Finally, we shall clarify which one is more coherent and more compatible with the principles of his moral theory.

Some areas of Philosophical Investigation lay prey to relativistic interpretations. Some of the most important are language games and Kripke’s reading of the concept of rule following. In addition, contemporary philosophers discuss the possibility of dialogue and comparison between forms of life and their independency. Some of these philosophers concentrate on differences of forms of life and deny the possibility of comparison and understanding of each other, stressing on special paragraphs of philosophical Investigations. On the other hand, another group emphasizes other parts of philosophical Investigations and invokes Wittgenstein’s approach to various forms of life. They don’t accept relativistic readings of philosophical Investigation. They argue that when forms of life are completely different and independent, people living in one form of life cannot recognize any other forms of life and therefore cannot even speak about them or name them as a “form of life”. Similarly, Interpreters have adverse views concerning Kripke’s reading of Wittgenstein. On the one hand, a group believes in an objective criterion for determination of the sense. On the other, a group thinks that following a rule according to what language users do, is the only criterion we have.

Knowledge is one of the most important matters in philosophical literature and since long considered by many philosophers. Ambiguity of knowledge has caused many different related approaches that are propounded. As the first step, this paper focuses on two views of justification of knowledge: Internalism and Externalism. Furthermore, some objections are propounded therein. As the second step, Goldman`s causal theory is expressed. According to Goldman, justification of belief is based on the knower`s reliability with regard to the production source of belief while he/she is independent of creditable theorems in his justification of the formation of beliefs that are criticized by some philosophers in this paper. Finally, the author expresses, in spite of improvements, some concepts such as, “good action” and “motive”, for overcoming criticisms expressed as “truth conditions”, but difficulties are not resolved due to the ignoring of the epistemic factor in the framework of induction and the metaphysic meaning of knowledge, which makes his perspective deficient and problems present.

During the first part of his career, Schelling presented profound discussions in the critique of Kant's philosophy and reflective thoughts. These discussions were the beginning of his investigations on the concept of unconscious. Schelling was the first person to have carried out extensive investigations on the unconscious realm. Moreover, he attributed symbolic expression to it. He considers mythology the result of unconscious forces and with introducing the concept of Unconscious offers the proper grounds for questioning the notion of Subject. Nonetheless, all these efforts are disused due to Schelling’s usage of difficult language and being mixed up with discussions of idealistic philosophy in the early and middle periods of his career.

Picture Theory challenges existential propositions possessing meaning. In Tractatus, these propositions are neither elementary nor synthetic. We can find two viewpoints by searching for existence in Tractatus. As the first point of view, Wittgenstein defines “exist” as a formal concept because it is not describing any state of affairs. He states this by saying that such propositions as, “there are 100 objects”, have no meaning. As the second point of view, by presenting a description of, “there is something”, he states that this proposition is preceding experience and even logic. The matter at first glance is similar to Russell’s outcome and way of concluding, but after a second look, Wittgenstein rejects Russell’s opinion of logical representation that, “there is something”, and claims that there is no propositional function representing it. In Wittgenstein’s view, legitimation of using identity in Russell’s logic, causes this error. Therefore, the impossibility of representing a bipolar picture from, “there is something”, beside Part 5.53 of Tractatus, could both be reasons to deny “identity-sing” as an essential constituent of conceptual notation.

For Descartes, there are two basic signs to distinguish between human beings and animal-machine: using language and the variety of human behaviors. Using language by humans is always novel, free from control by external stimuli and appropriate to a specific situation, which any animal-machine is unable to do. Descartes considers these features as gifts from God. Chomsky formulates these features as creative aspect of language use. He believes that the main problem, entitled as Descartes’ Problem, is how or why we choose a certain sentence. Chomsky says that he does not have the right solution but also does not accept a spiritual essence either, which is Descartes’ answer to the issue. Since this problem does not have a straight answer, present critiques attack the assumptions that allow Chomsky to outline such a problem. The purpose of this paper is to review some of Chomsky’s claims that stand on these assumptions. In this paper, Descartes’ problem is explained from both Descartes’ and Chomsky’s points of view, next, some questions usually asked of Chomsky are presented, and thereafter, his answer are reviewed. Finally, a few questions (critiques) of some Descartes problem assumptions from this paper’s position are exhibited.

Despite the influence of Maurice Blanchot’s writings on contemporary critical theory, his lettering has rarely been examined in terms of its formal features. While his fragment-writing seems obscure and incoherent, it can be considered as an exclusive method of merging philosophy and literature, a performance of language facing its limit. Highlighting “death” as the central idea of his writing, the present study traces a double approach to “death” in Blanchot, which paradoxically is introduced as the “beyond time in time”, enjoying an extreme position in the system of signification. With this double image of “death”, language suffers a fissure between two aspects, one corresponding to the waiting for realization of meaning (through signification) and the other to the insistence upon the material un-representing body of the word itself. This double nature is the constitutional element of the form and the structure of Maurice Blanchot’s extreme fragment writing. It is observed how the double conception of “death” affects formal and rhetorical details of his texts, especially his Awaiting Oblivion, The Step Not Beyond, and The Writing of the Disaster. It is argued that the fundamental paradoxical and ambiguous nature of his writing is the direct result of writing under a double point-of-view of ‘I’, and its ‘other’, at the same time that it promises a genuine idea of writing to come.

Existence is the first recognition and the first issue in metaphysics. Avicenna also follows Aristotle in Ontology and uses of "being" (Maujud). The Subject of metaphysics is, “being as is being”. The concept of "being" is common sense. Speaks the absolute truth. It is a concept that encompasses all things. Thus can be thought of "Being" outside, that is, Ipsum Being, and isn’t Quiddity (God). Can be thought of "Being" outside, that is, Component of Existence and Quiddity. Thus, Avicenna’s concept of "being" is dealing with the reality of the story, and can be substantive and non-substantive. About God’s "mere presence", and creation, is the component of quiddity and of being. Therefore, Being as used by Avicenna has five different meanings: the particular existence, the general existence, act of existence, act of being, and conjunction of being. Existence is either used as a noun, a meaning that refers to the Nature of Things, or refers to the general or common attribute of creatures, or implies an "act of existence" which infers of the existence of God's creatures, or used to mean the "act of being", which is considered origin (Manshayt) and of foreign root, or in terms of transport between subject and predicate is an interface. In this paper, with the passing of existence to being, we consider the five senses

The German philosopher and thinker, Ernst Bloch (1885-1977), attempts in his comprehensive work, The Principle of Hope (Das Prinzip Hoffnung), to describe hope as an anthropological constant that aims at individual and social bonum optimum. At the same time, he puts all his efforts in justifying the utopian function in his philosophy, not only historically and sociologically, but also ontologically and aesthetically. Utopian thinking, and its fusion with reflection on possibility, plays a major role in defining his magnum opus. The following article tries to figure out the traces of hope in Bloch’s philosophy and to establish a connection between literature and philosophy, relying on examples from Robert Musil’s novel, The Man without Qualities.

Emanation is the base of total philosophy of Plotinus. In spite of this and despite he is an accurate thinker; his explanation of it is blended with different metaphors. Some researchers believes that this is because of his attempt to absorb ancient philosophies, specially the philosophy of Aristotle and Posidonius, into his rich philosophical tradition. But, some others believes that Plotinus applies these metaphors to explain some new theory which is called double act doctrine. On the base of this theory, every complete thing, in addition to its internal activity which is its true nature, has an external activity which is flow from it as a portrait. The external activity of the One is a potential indeterminate intellect which at first has the audacity to separate from the One. But, after separation, comes back to it apologetically which results in his completion. In this paper, we elaborate Plotinus' metaphorical and non-metaphorical explanation of emanation and its requisites.

One of the most controversial questions on Virtue Theory is the relation between virtue and skill. Skill, like virtue, is an acquired excellence. Amongst contemporary epistemologists, Zagzebski is one of the pioneers of virtue epistemology who pays good attention. She tries to put forward an accurate account of pure virtue theory as involves all things that are called virtue. One of the problems explored is distinguishing between skill and virtue. In Zagzebski’s view, virtue is distinct from skill. We have intellectual and moral virtues, as well as intellectual and moral skills. Virtues and skills have numerous connections. Skills allow a virtuous person to be effective in action. However, virtues psychically precede skills. This article aims to study this problem. Furthermore, virtues stand prior to skills. This article proceeds to study this problem with an analytic- descriptive approach.

The Kantian smack of Fichte’s thought naturally propels an investigator to trace the Kantian issues in Fichte’s philosophy which he called Wissenschaftslehre. Then again, I claim it is just in the light of Kantian Practical Philosophy and through digging the Second Critique, not the First, that we can unmask the substantial debt of Fichte to Kant. The supremacy of the practical, this Kantian idea, would be the seed of Wissenschaftslehre’s development. Expanding this doctrine, particularly around the concept of Freedom, Fichte insists this concept is the beginning of every consistence and acceptable Metaphysics. Therefore, after examining the intellectual climate of the late 18th Century Germany and the idea of primacy of the Practical reason over Theoretical reason we derive from the Second Critique, we ultimately look for the freedom in Wissenschaftslehre.