نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 34 (پاییز و زمستان 1397)

Fictionalism about a region of discourse can provisionally be characterized as the view that claims made within that discourse are not best seen as aiming at literal truth but are better regarded as a sort of ‘fiction’. As we will see, this first characterization of fictionalism is in several ways rough. But it is a useful point of departure. In this paper, a general introduction of fictionalism is, preliminarily, provided. Then we briefly consider Yablo’s classification, along with his very own reading of it. After a quick review over the notion of “Possible Worlds” throughout the history of the idea, we will come to show that how ontological problems rise against the possible worlds semantics in contemporary methodology of philosophy, and that how Yablo’s version of fictionalism (i.e. figuralism) helps to solve those problems. As a reading of fictionalism, (Yablo’s) figuralism can lead to answer various other questions about ontology, reference, truth, etc, questions that are related to specific propositions such as mathematical or modal ones.

The feminine language in the feminist film theory has two major fields. The first one would be the theory of psychoanalysis. According to that, men and women face two different processes in shaping their identities, and get a stable and fixed identity as male or female. So, as film or other cultural products' spectators, men and women will have fixed specified experiences due to their sexualities which have been formed according to the fixed formula of psychoanalysis; for example, men are always the subjects of desire and women are its objects. It was after the cultural studies that the cultural point of view in feminist film theory showed up. In this theory, receiving the meaning of a cinematic product is affected by the culture and the negotiation among the cultural differentials, such as age, sex, history, class, economy, and lived experiences of each man and woman. So all the men and all the women won't make the same meaning just due to their sexualities. As the cultural feminism claims, the meaning is always fluid and changing. So there's no need to make a feminine language vs. the masculine language in film making, because a fixed static masculine language in cinema is totally out of question according to the cultural feminism. It would be enough to reread the cinematic products and their sexual significations over and over again. In each reading the sexual significations are deconstructed due to the cultural differentials, and get new meanings which can even be anti-masculine.

What are the common attributes of the mathematical proofs? Various answers to this question have been provided: Some deny any conceptual commonness among proofs, while others accept the conceptual duality or multiplicity of mathematical proofs. They believe that “the mathematical proof” refers to two or more distinct concepts sharing the "same name". This paper shows that, first, the mathematical and non-mathematical proofs are instances of a vague and single concept: the successful or correct reasoning. And second, in all mathematical proofs and their definitions, an argument pattern must meet three conditions: being rigour, surveyable, and reliable in all possible words. If the first two conditions are met, the mentioned argument can be characterized as "mathematical"; and if the third condition is satisfied, that argument can be characterized as "correct". So four conceptual components, in all mathematical proofs and their definitions, are common: argument, being rigour, surveyability, and correctness. Thirdly, all disagreements about the concept of mathematical proof are due to different interpretations of each of the four aforementioned components. That is, several philosophers and mathematicians have proposed different interpretations of each of the four basic components of the mathematical proof.

In the design of monotheistic religions, faith in God and in the unseen world is one of the most important facts which paves the way for man’s achieving happiness. Based on the ontological analysis of faith in the transcendent philosophy, there is a link between faith and knowledge such that the rules of knowledge such as being, hierarchy, and the rule of unity, can also be attributed to the truth of faith. Although, in the first glance, these Sadrean concepts seem to reduce the truth of faith to the theoretical reason of man, Sadra’s viewpoint was finally focused on both theoretical and practical reasons. He considers as real just that kind of faith which is based on both of them. The divisions of faith as well as the discussion of mortality, are all considered to be the result of the Sadra's science-centered approach toward faith.

Kant is a great philosopher who, in the context of anthropology, believes that humans do not have a stable identity. In Mulla Sadra's view, man is the only being which does not have a certain nature and his truth would not be his actions; rather the infinite possibilities ahead of him would form his reality. From Kant's point of view, man is not of a steady nature; humans shape their identities through their actions and behaviors, especially in their interaction with others and in the community. Both philosophers have given special attention to creativity and intellectual creation. Kant tried to eliminate the limitations of theoretical reason with the aid of practical reason, thus established the basis of humanistic ethics through discussing the good will which is the most important feature of the realization of humanity. But the philosophical anthropology of Sadr Al-Muta Allihin, in contrast to Kant’s, is based on theoretical theory. The theoretical intellect promotes to the Acquired Intellect by conjunction and union with the Active Intellect. Humans are God’s caliphs having all his divine names and attributes. They have the attributes associated with both tanzih and tashbih. God has bestowed upon them the ability to perceive everything, so that they can recognize all universal and partial truths. Thus, due to the unity of the knower and the known, the rational universe becomes similar to the external world. This is what human integrity and divine caliph mean.

The history of aesthetics contains basics and principles which have impacted on our perception of art. What is obvious is that the non-universal and non-general criteria are inter-subjective. In fact, the novel and main achievements of Frank Sibley, as a contemporary English philosopher (1923-96), when aesthetics was still under the influence of the New Idealism, were directed towards challenging these criteria for the purpose of introducing and analyzing aesthetic notions and features. One vital component in Sibley’s thoughts is the distinction he makes between daily and artistic notions. Actually, the main reason behind his fame is the very distinction he made under the titles “aesthetic notions” and “non-aesthetic notions”, by which he enters the realm of analytic aesthetics. Sibley’s approach in presenting aesthetic examples includes the use of the critical discourse for the evaluation of artistic works by applying bi-functional expressions used in both art and daily discourse. According to what mentioned and the fact that Sibley used aesthetic and non-aesthetic functions, the current paper seeks to study the aesthetic field with emphasis on Sibley’s aesthetic teachings and by using examples and evidence, while introducing aesthetic notions in relation to non-aesthetic ones in order to clarify his views in this regard.

Ideology is one of the concepts discussed and scrutinized by many scholars in various branches of science. However, there is no comprehensive definition of the word accepted by a majority of scholars. With respect to the features of Ideology which has been put forward by scholars, they can be divided into three main groups. The first group has a positive attitude toward ideology and regards it as a necessity for human life. The second one, offering negative definitions of ideology, does not evaluate it positively; rather, seeks to negate it as leading to division and separation. The last group introduces ideology as a neutral concept to which both positive and negatives features raised by different thinkers can be attributed. Jiddu Krishnamurti is one of the thinkers who have a negative attitude toward ideology and rejects it for some alleged qualities, including divorce, separation, seduction, and so on. This attitude is rejected by both religious and secular thinkers.