فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال شانزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 61، بهار 1399)

Kripke’s interpretation of Wittgenstein’s investigations separates into two parts: “Skeptical paradox” and “Private language argument”. The investigations focus on a Semantic Skepticism Paradox tied with Rule-following, and its other important problems should be interpreted in the same way. The subject of this research is the analysis of Kripke’s unrealistic interpretation of meaning through grammar interpretation of the word “skepticism”. Kripke shows that an unrealistic view of meaning is in the ordinary of language games and related to its creative nature within an unlimited variety, and meaning arises from a special relationship between language and realism that exists inside the form of life under specific conditions. And this gives different dimensions to the grammar of meaning base on its place and nature inside. As a result of this analysis, the meaning has many different dimensions in the course of our active life and can only in one of its uses be used as a realistic view of meaning and we cannot generalize the grammar of this specific use to the other grammars and uses.

The relation between Art and Truth in the history of western thought has been proposed since the advent of art theory in the Plato and Aristotle era. In the modern era, philosophers have also considered this relation. We know that there was a great deal of separation by Baumgarten, between Truth and Art with the advent of aesthetics in the modern era, and this separation got determined by Kant. But after him, thinkers such as Hegel tried to think about the relation of art and truth again. Of course, Hegel did not explicitly bring up the relationship between Art and Truth, but he considers Art as an appearance of "manifestations of the absolute" and dignity of its realization. Art is the first demonstration of absolute spirit. "What is the relationship between Art and Truth from Hegel's point of view? What is his perception and comprehension of the Truth? And how does he attempt to overcome the complete separation between Art and Truth (with his dialectics, of course) which has been brought by modern aesthetics?", are the main questions of this paper. The method of this research is the interpretative and content analysis based on the works of Hegel, his commentators, and other philosophers (related to the subject).

To realize human autonomy, Descartes establishes the dialectical relation between consciousness and freedom through the three essential elements of understanding, will, and divine power. Through the free will of negative, as methodic doubt and the destruction of all presuppositions, the basis of consciousness is referred to the human being and releases it from external authority. By building a knowledge based on the innate concepts that come from within and without mediation consciously re-establishes knowledge. In this way, human beings not only gain autonomy of understanding but also freedom through the effort of a systematic and restrictive understanding. Because with the entry of the limiting of understanding in the area of the will, freedom is no longer meant to be nonchalance and lawlessness. But freedom within the limits of certain judgments of understanding and its legislation and divine power are enclosed. Through this process, it is promoted to positive freedom. Descartes, by declaring that the natural imaginations are verifiably confirmed by divine confirmation, relied on God to guarantee the knowledge of the understanding and in this way, he describes freedom as God's guarantee. Therefore, in Descartes' philosophy, the realization of positive freedom under dialectical conditions form on the basis of the complex relationship between will, intelligence, and divine power, and all of the elements that constitute a whole will only have meaning with each other.

On the basis of the normativity of belief thesis in Epistemology, there is a normative relation between a belief and its content. On the basis of a well-known formulation of the Relation, which we call the narrow-scope norm of Truth, “one ought to (believe that p) iff p is true”. Our focus, in this paper concerns the explanatory role of the truth norm of belief with regard to the norm of evidence, according to which "one ought to (believe that p) iff evidence supports its truth"; we will call the latter norm, the narrow-scope norm of evidence. On the basis of the idea, evidence is not independently valuable, but their normativity pro producing beliefs depends on the truth norm of belief. In another words, as evidence typically point toward truth and that, according to the truth norm of belief, forming beliefs are constrained normatively by truth, it follows that beliefs are constrained normatively by evidence as well. After specifying the idea, we will consider the wide-scope norm of belief, according to which “one ought to (believe that p iff p is true)”. Our claim which we are going to argue for is that the wide-scope norm of truth has a better explanatory role with respect to evidence in comparison with the narrow-scope norm of belief.

One of the central issues in Scriptures is Wisdom. One of the deuterocanonical books in the Bible is the Book of Wisdom (or Wisdom of Solomon). The description of wisdom in this book is very similar to the description of “De” in the book of Dao De Jing. The purpose of this paper is to investigate wisdom in the Book of Wisdom and De in Dao De Jing and compare them. This research is done by documentary and descriptive-analytical method. Wisdom and De are the manifestation of God and Dao. Both play an essential role in the creation of the beings and their salvation. Human beings have a duty to seek wisdom and De and to obtain them. A man who has wisdom and De is a perfect man and wise. It seems that wisdom and De in these books signify a common reality. Of course, there are some differences. Differences can arise from the difference between the two religious traditions and the difference in the approach of these Scriptures.

The purpose of this research was to study creativity as an original understanding based on Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics, and its implications for education. The research method was analytical-deductive. Creativity is one of the highest goals of all educational systems. Different approaches to Psychology, consistent with the general theoretical frameworks and large assumptions that have been accepted, have provided different and sometimes contradictory definitions. However, creativity is certainly a kind of understanding, a genuine understanding that transcends existing Knowledge. The fundamental axis of Gadamer's philosophical hermeneutics is what is understood. In this research, while analyzing Gadamer's view on understanding, he examines creativity as the most original type of understanding from Gadamer's point of view and as an example of his practical wisdom, and principles such as not being able to be trained, the ability to be specific, and measure additionality to creativity from the point of view of Godammer's philosophical hermeneutics as well as educational implications such as education goal, form of educational system, teaching method, curriculum, learning, evaluation, motivation and research method were extracted.