نشریه شناخت
سال چهاردهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 84، بهار و تابستان 1400)

Jean Baudrillard (1929 – 2007) as one of the figures of the post-structuralist view, has a remarkable theoretical view concerning the real and social issues. In his view the real has a constructive side which is based on the linguistic system and it is knowable and explainable only in the semiotic system. Hence the centrality of sign in his system and reproduction of all concepts in its light. He tries to explain social, cultural, political and economic concepts in a capitalist society based on this theoretical framework, and stresses the shortcomings of older concepts in these explanations. In this paper I will evaluate the “sign value” as the principal concept in his analysis of the capitalist society in light of his semiotic critique of Marx’s concept of “exchange value”.

Film perception is a more complex issue than other arts due to its unique characteristics and multifaceted nature. Among film theories, a movement called “cognitive theory” deals with such problems. However, despite all the capacities of Islamic philosophy in cognitive issues, no research has been done in the context of Islamic philosophy. But can this be pursued in the context of Islamic philosophy? The main question in this research is how does the viewer perceives the film? In this research, I use the method of qualitative content analysis and library collection. Based on the common interpretation of perception in Ibn Sina’s texts, perception is form acquisition. The film is a hand-made art, and its production is the photographic way. Display it on a surface or screen. Provides animated images, or at least it is possible. This research is the starting point for developing the philosophy of film and cognitive theory in Islamic philosophy. According to Ibn Sina’s view, film perception begins with the level of sensory perception by obtaining visual and auditory forms and continues to the level of intellectual perception appropriate to the form and content of each film. In the context of Ibn Sina’s philosophy, color exists in the real world. Instead, the viewer sees a combination of colored light and curtains that emit their light from the device’s light source. This study shows film perception’s challenging and critical context for designing and responding to film theory/philosophy issues.

Übermensch is one of Nietzsche’s most famous and also most controversial thoughts. Controversies around it are mostly the consequence of the complexity and obscurity of the very idea. In this article, examining Nietzsche’s writings in line with Heidegger’s reading of his work, first, I explore the deep interrelation between the concepts of Übermensch and “the Eternal Recurrence of the same”. Then, I demonstrate the unique role of the Übermensch in the gathering of Nietzsche’s two great ideas – “Eternal Recurrence” and “will to power”; I argue that for Nietzsche, the Übermensch is identical with the pure reality. Next, I explicate Heidegger’s interpretation of this reality, and the relation between technique and Übermensch; in accordance with this interpretation, I argue that Nietzsche’s Übermensch and Heidegger’s essence of technique -Gestell- are thoughts concerned with the same issue. Following that, I state that “the Eternal Recurrence of the Same” is the metaphysical articulation of consumption and represents the emergence of the world in the frame of technique.

Art by making ideas sensuous brings our conscious ideas into harmony with what is given to us unconsciously by nature. For Schelling, aesthetic intuition is the real expression of reason; it objectively produces what philosophy can only address ideally through intellectual intuition, thus art is the eternal organ of philosophy. The production of the artwork, which comes about through the work of genius, begins by the free conscious act, brings the identity of freedom and necessity, and ends in objective unconsciousness act of artwork. In the work of art, there is an identity between freedom and the necessity and also between subject and object; what brings harmony in the artwork  between the free conscious act and the objective unconscious act is the absolute, which initiates philosophy. By showing the inadequacy of practical reason, which is based on the division between subject and object, Schelling deviates from Fichte’s transcendental idealism. So the philosophy of art must be considered as a subversion of Fichte’s focus on practical reason, where Fichte grounds his system in the self’ s free activity, Schelling now argues that the true realization of human activity is in the work of art, which is objectively produced. This essay examines the position of genius in art product, by explaining the relation between the conscious act and the unconscious act and demonstrating the identity of the two in the production that is called the highest expression of nature. Therefore, with a focus on demounting the subversion of practical philosophy, the aim is to show how the absolute is objectified in the work of art, which is achieved through genius and aesthetic intuition.

tate, using the concept of “invisible hand”. By this, he means that the formation of the political is justified by the nonpolitical. So, without explicit appealing to the political concepts, the state can be justified. This state, i.e. the minimal state, raised from the private contracts between people, has the main duty to protect from citizens. In the sconed part of his book, after introducing the “entitlement theory of justice”, he argues that all states beyond the minimal state are illegitimate. The main arguments for these kinds of states are realizing social justice, so Nozick rejects these arguments. By analyzing Nozick’s argument against social justice, I show that these arguments are invalid. Then by critical analysis of invisible hand, it is shown that first, this method leads to rejection of the basic structure of society as a subject justice (the Rawlsian assumption), and second, this conception of political justification method with the particular Nozick’s conceptions of Lockean proviso, rejects all egalitarian views. So, Nozick’s presuppositions in the first part of the book are inconsistent with all kinds of states beyond the minimal state.

Our belief in the reality of objects and  agents  is subject of  the problem of external world, as a fundamental problem in philosophy. The main questions are  whether we know  the external world and whether such a thing exists. Berkeley's ontology as a direct consequence of his epistemology as well as his analysis of the concept existence leads him to  accept  external world existence as a perception and to  refute independent existence of external objects, i.e. his idealism. We addressed here some of his main arguments: the argument from analysis of concept existence, the argument from  likeness, the argument from abstractness refutation, and the Master Argument,  to argue for validity and unsoundness of the arguments.

Many epistemologists acknowledge that the importance of Gettier’s counterexamples is in revealing the problem we encounter when analyzing the concept of knowledge. As they assert, the root of the problem lies in the way we evaluate our intuitions used for conceptual analysis. We, here, are to look into those intuitions which, more than the nature of knowledge, are related to knowledge attribution in ordinary language. It seems likely that they help us find out a way to remove Gettier’s counterexamples or other similar cases known today as Gettier-type counterexamples. The article consists of two main parts. First, we will explain three proposals that result in taking away the condition of justification, truth and belief, respectively. Taking away one of the traditional conditions of knowledge can be a possibe way to protect the conceptual analysis of knowledge from Gettier (Gettier-type) counterexamples. In the second part, we will clarify why these three proposals, and similar ones, have not yet been able to remove Gettier (Gettier-type) counterexamples. We believe that they have three main flaws. (1) Not all possible cases of knowledge are covered. (2) Some arguments are not conclusive. (3) They either involve some misunderstandings about the nature of ordinary language and the way its words work, or, from a methodological viewpoint, are ill-founded and have controversial consequences. Although the first and second flaws are limited to those proposals criticized in this article, we believe that the third one can go even further and include those proposals that pave the way to remove Gettier (Gettier-type) counterexamples by relying on our intuitions about the nature of knowledge.

Aristotle discusses “Unmoved Mover” and “thought thinking” in theology and there are features for that, including substance and immateriality and pure actuality. Al-Kindi uses “cause,” “activity,” and “creation” in his discussion of the concept of God. The point of intersection of the two philosophers is their definition of philosophy. Reforms and concepts such as “truth,” and “cause”, and “first cause” have been proposed in the definition of philosophy by both. These concepts are reflected in al-Kindi’s conceptualization of God. The question is, given Aristotle and al-Kindi’s definition of philosophy, is the possible for them to study the conceptualization of God? That is, does the definition of philosophy allow them to conceptualize God and study it? How is the possibility of conceptualizing God explained to al-Kindi and Aristotle? In this article, using Aristotle’s Little Alpha and Lambda, both of which have been considered by al-Kindi, we examine the concept of God. In the first part, we examine the definition of philosophy by Aristotle and al-Kindi, and express the terms and concepts contained in this Definition; And in the other section, using Lambda and the first philosophy and the concept of “eternal,” we state that Without using the definition of philosophy and with natural principles, Aristotle introduced a metaphysical deity  (theology in a special sense) and Kindi based on the definition of philosophy and its end and indirectly using the Aristotelian metaphysical principles  (four causes and faculty and Actuality) Introduces a metaphysical-theological god.

Pythagorean departure from absolute monism of Parmenides refers to a stream of influence and reception between the two prominent and influential representatives of pre-Socratic thought. If we consider the explanation of beings as pluralities, as one of the hidden intellectual goals in pre-Socratic thought, not only we will not find such an explanation in Parmenides’s thought, but depending on the “foundation” that which Parmenides puts it and develops, any explanation of pluralities become impossible. According to historical evidences, at least part of the thoughts in Pythagorean’s thought stream, can be seen as a reaction to Parmenides’s approach to the problem of explaining pluralities. In this way, we can consider the Pythagoreans to be the first critics of Parmenidean thought, who, too, by establishing a certain “foundation” in order to explain pluralities, sought to provide a suitable answer to the difficulties posed by Parmenides. The present study seeks to shed more light on the relationship between the two ideas by providing an explanation of these two “foundations” of Parmenides and Pythagorean.

In the essay “The Origin of the Work of Art”, Heidegger deals with the essence of art and the work of art with a philosophical approach. He believes that the proviso of the being of the work of art is conditioned by the ontological argument and in this situation, introduces it as the unfolding factor of the truth of existence. A truth that makes the unfolding possible even in the existence mystification era. Therefore, when the work of art is able to question the existence and release itself from the yoke of ontic and focus on the existence of ontic, then it provides the possibility of unfolding for itself. Yet, what can put the work of art in the position of questioning the existence and what is the criterion for evaluating the possibility of penetration to the circle of ontology by any work of art? A criterion that can be compared with any work of art and its ontological components can be surveyed from Heidegger’s point of view. In this article, we try to evaluate the painting of Van Gogh and a painting by Sohrab Sepehri using the criterion that we get based on The Origin of the Work of Art” – by Martin Heidegger, so that at least the dimensions of Heidegger’s opinion on the work of art would be discussed.