نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 33 (بهار و تابستان 1397)

In this essay, we have tried to find Rumi`s views on the concept of beauty. We have focused on Fih-e Ma Fih and limited our research to it. For this purpose, we have put forward six questions from a contemporary viewpoint toward “beauty” and attempted to find Rumi’s (probable) answers to them in Fih-e Ma Fih. Accordingly, through a philosophical analysis, we traced out the six following questions: What kind of property is beauty ontologically? What does the experience of beauty feel like? Is beauty relative or absolute? Is beauty an equivocal concept or a univocal one? Is the relation between beauty and ugliness the subject of contrariety or of contradiction? And finally, what are the types of beauty in terms of its possessor? It seems that Rumi considers beauty an objective property, not a subjective or objective-subjective one. He holds that beauty is delightful and supposes that it is absolute. He believes that beauty is an equivocal concept and considers its relation with ugliness to be the subject of contradiction. Finally, he argues that beauty can be ascribed to mental states, abstract objects, and physical objects.

In Islamic and Quranic culture, praising and worshipping God is not specific to human beings; rather, the whole world and all creatures of the universe praise God consciously and in their specific languages. Thus, “the Creatures’ praise to God” has always been a controversial topic among researchers of all eras since the Quran descended. However, it takes a different form in the transcendent theosophy. Mulla Sadra, as a philosopher, mystic, and exegetist, dealt with this problem from a philosophical, mystical, and exegetic viewpoint. The present research deals with the terminology of the term “praise” and explains Mulla Sadra’s philosophical viewpoint toward it. Relying on his philosophical principles, Mulla Sadra puts forward three arguments for generality of praising. He expresses that all Creatures have knowledge and perception, and praise God in their own languages.

Justifiability of knowledge statements has always been of the philosophers’ most important and original concerns. The introduction of the distinction between the context of discovery and the context of justification is also an attempt to answer this dilemma. The aim of the Context of discovery is to discover the context of scientific laws and theories, while the context of justification aims at justifying the context of theories. Each proponent of discovery/justification distinction, has, according to his/her philosophical approach, some interpretation of this distinction: temporal and logical Sequence of these two processes, considering the context of discovery as a factual and historical process of science and the context of justification as a normative framework for science, logical analysis of the context of justification vs. the context of discovery with its empirical analysis, belonging of the context of justification to the scope of philosophy of science and the context of discovery being particular to the field of history, psychology and sociology of science, the difference of the questions pointing out to each context, separation of internal and external history of science, normative perspective of discovery vs. factual perspective of justification. Using such a distinction in understanding the method of science can be criticized concerning: uncertainty of both contexts as temporal and logical processes, intervention of logical factors in the context of discovery, the distinction not being limited to the two contexts and the necessity of existing at least a three-fold distinction, the irrational and non-logical factors involved in the context of justification, the Para-normative growth of science and the diversity not being explained in the context of discovery.

Contrary to what it seems to be, Social Darwinism is the result of Herbert Spencer's efforts rather than Darwin's. The advocates of social Darwinism used the idea of survival of the fittest, which was initially invented by Spencer, in order to analyze and explain social events and moral behaviors. Since Social Darwinism was a justification for removing the weak persons and boosting the survival of the rich, and also justified many of the great wars, including World War II, it has become a notorious philosophy, and many critics have tried to reject it. Michael Rus as a contemporary evolutionist and theorist of the moral philosophy, has reviewed Social Darwinism. The results of this review led him to a new evolutionary ethics. In this article we will introduce and review the social Darwinism from the viewpoint of Ruse. At the end, we conclude that common judgments about social Darwinism are hasty, and the critique of social Darwinism needs to think more.

and playwright. There is a close relationship between his philosophical and artistic works. It can even be said that reading his dramas provides a ground for understanding his philosophical concepts. One of the favorite philosophical themes for Marcel is “man” and his relationship with the other. Man is a unique subject, not an isolated one; he is not an Island. Through the history of philosophy, this man, the subject, and his relation to others has been an object of philosophical inquiries. From the cradle to the grave, there has been no time man has been absolutely alone. So his being is a being–through others and his existence implies the existence of others. This has been the gospel of contemporary existentialists, including Gabriel Marcel whose existentialism is basically theistic. In his view, the individual becomes aware of himself through social circumstances. Marcel developed the I-Thou relationship, which became an attempt to restore the fragmented and fallen dignity of the interpersonal relationship. Moreover, Marcel reflected upon certain experiences metaphysically implied in the I-Thou relationship. These form the foundations or basis of any authentic mode of interpersonal relationship. However, my relationship with others is determined by the type of relationship that exists between us. In other words, I, as a human being, can exist or act in one of the two ways: I can exist and relate lovingly and authentically with others, which Marcel calls the I-Thou relationship; or I can relate inauthentically to others -as I would relate to any object, tool, or instrument- which is the I–it (or he or she) relationship. Marcel's plays do not provide answers; rather, they do suggest paths for reflection, through which we might discover an authentic response to the challenge of the dramatic situation. The situations we witness in Marcel's plays often show us how relationships can go sour and become inauthentic. The story of the play affects us, because we recognize aspects of ourselves in the characters. What Marcel shows us in his plays (the comedies excepted) is the darker side of interpersonal relationships. There is always room for hope, but hope does not take away the suffering and pain people inflict on themselves and others. In his plays, Marcel shows great respect for what he calls human dignity. He does not judge, but simply shows us how people are, and, consequently, how we ourselves could be as well. Watching or reading a Marcel’s play makes us feel slightly uncomfortable. What we see or read confronts us with ourselves and forces us to think about issues that have to do with relationships. In this paper, the way this issue has reflected in his drama, Dot the I, has been investigated

In this essay, we would review the coherence theory of truth from the viewpoint of the later Wittgenstein's philosophy, in order to answer the two problems with which this theory faces. First, the Problem of the system of beliefs isolated from the world; and second, the problem of evaluating alternative coherent systems of beliefs. In the beginning, we will examine two assumptions of the coherence theory of truth, which lead to these two problems, and the two problems themselves. Then, reviewing the coherence theory, we will provide a solution for these two problems. It will become clear that the hinge propositions derived from the later Wittgenstein's epistemological ideas, would be an efficient solution to the isolation objection. Finally, to find a solution for the second problem, we can, by formulating the coherence theory in the light of this kind of propositions, use the criterion of the efficiency of the system of beliefs in order to make a choice between two alternative coherent systems of beliefs.