نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 19 (بهار و تابستان 1390)

The question of plurality or unity of human soul is among the topicswhich basically originate from Plato's and Aristotle's works. Platoconsiders the subject from two approaches and finally accepts theplurality whereas Aristotle deems it unreasonable to reckon the soul tobe plural and divisible and consequently admits the unity of the soul.Regarding these two theories (i.e. the unity of the human soul and theplurality of it), the philosophers have to either confirmed one theoryand reject the other at the same time. Therefore the two PeripateticIslamic and Christian philosophers, Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas areinclines toward the “unity of soul “theory. The difference of these twophilosophers is in that Avicenna’s requires clarifications due to someconflicting aspects in his theory. This conflict arises from therepeatedly emphasis on soul unity on one hand and in the meantimeattribution of human activities to three other souls. To integrate theseevidently clashing points it is possible to set forth two status namely“definition and realization” (essence and existence). Aquinas assessesthe subject more rigorously and in more detail comparing to Avicennaand while considering different views including Plato’s, proves thedominance of Aristotle's theory over Plato’s.

Carnap’s method of explication of concepts proposed based on the ideathat the main responsibility of philosopher of science is the clarificationof vague scientific and unscientific concepts in the language of scienceand replacement of them by “crystal clear” ones. The critiques ofphilosophers like Strawson, Quine, and Popper caused mostphilosophers of science not to openly endorse Carnap’s method ofexplication, even though an important part of their philosophical worksdevoted to his project. In recent years, some philosophers of sciencehave fully defended the method of explication. Instead of criticizing thearguments of these philosophers, this paper criticizes the products ofapplying the method of explication on one important concept ofphilosophy of science, “unification”. It has been shown that the effortsof philosophers of science in offering an explication for this concepthave been futile.

“Religious experience”, in its broadest sense, is either an innerexperience or an objective event that has religious meaning for thesubject. In philosophy of religion, however, a narrower meaning of theterm is at issue: an experience taken by the subject as experientialawareness of God; in which one directly perceives the presence of God(or a divine being). Religious empiricism is an approach which tries tojustify or reconstruct religious beliefs on the ground of “religiousexperience”. In this paper, after a short review on the historicalbackground of this attitude, I will propose two different meanings forreligious empiricism. Then, considering Schleiermacher's and James'sviews, I will discuss religious empiricism in its contemporary andperhaps most important formulation developed by Swinburne andAlston. Religious empiricism could be understood as a religiousreaction to the criticism of religion in the modern time. It tries to stayand act within the framework of modern philosophy that emphasizes onthe significance of experience. In their intellectual efforts, theadvocates of this stream have expanded the boundaries of the notion ofexperience. On the other hand, “religious experience” has a differentmeaning and function for each of aforementioned philosophers. So, toevaluate this approach we need to understand these differences indepth.

Much has been said in discussions concerning literary criticism fromthe position of the writer and the reader deciding the type of theexisting readings and claims in criticisms. But the problem is that theidentity of the writers and readers of various texts are not preciselydefinite and determined in a way we could be able to establish ourcritic claims. How could we deal with such a problem and what mightbe the solution to it? The concepts such as “the real individual”,“typical individual” and the broader concept of “the logic of situation”have been applied here to find a solution to this problem and all thesediscussions have become an introduction to Roland Barth's “the deathof the writer” theory. And here Roland Barth's viewpoints can bechallenged. A study of Barth's theory according to the concept of “thelogic of situation” can lead us to results contradictory with those ofBarth's. In fact, the work done here in this article is that the theory of 'the death of the writer' has been applied to that theory itself; that is, theconsequences of Barth's theory have been studied independent from hisown intentions.

Transcendental Ego is the principle of principles that philosophizationof great philosophers such as Husserl has been based upon it. Husserl,too, as a follower of Descartes meditations and philosophy withattemption in intentionality of transcendental ego accepts it as the baseof principles of philosophization and declares himself as a NewCartesian. In this study, the author develops an original reading of theCartesian Meditation. This text, far from giving rise to a“Transcendental solipsism”, leads to a constitution of intersubjectivityon various levels (“primordial”, “Intersubjective” et “Objective”). In itscenter, a “Phenomenological Construction” operates, i.e. amethodological piece that masters the genetic approach ofintersubjectivity. Closely following the “almost mathematical” rigourof this crucial text of Husserl’s phenomenology, in this way equallytackles the issue of the constitution of the experience of the other andthe truly intersubjective structure of transcendental subjectivity. Thisstudy concludes with the metaphysical results of the analysis of theexperience of the other.

The assumption that people understand each other by employing a‘folk’ or “commonsense” psychology is currently pervasive inphilosophy of mind, cognitive science and various other disciplines.Folk psychology is almost always taken to consist primarily of anability to attribute internal propositional attitude states, principallybeliefs and desires, in order to predict and explain behavior in adeductive structure, so “folk psychology” also called “belief- desirepsychology”. But this is not the only theory that considers interactionbetween people, there is also a rival that called simulation theory. Thistheory is the greatest opponent of “folk psychology”. In this researchI, like Ratcliff, call all the things that people do to understand, explainand predict each other, folk psychology. And call the first view “folkpsychology as a theory of mind” and the second one “folk psychologyas a mental simulation” or “simulation” alone. In this paper I will beginby the most accepted view, folk psychology as a theory of mind, ,based on Fodor’s view, then we will come to some critics that bring upby Goldman. After these critics we will present simulation view andanswer to some of its critics to “folk psychology as a theory of mind”.Then, at the end of the essay I will conclude that we can mix this toview together and present a hybrid theory to consider what peoplereally do to explain and predict each other behavior.

In this research, the theory of probabilistic causation is investigated.The main idea of this theory is that the cause changes the probability ofhappening effect. The causation in this theory is introduced as anobjective relation and it is based on inherent properties. The causalrelation is attended in type level. Otherwise human cognition of naturalphenomena is not definite and determined; the process of cognition isapproximated to the truth. In another words, with the acceptance offault of human cognition, man suggests a probable frame forexplanation of his findings. Probabilistic causation uses the probabilitytheory as a tool for explaining the relationship between cause andeffect. Probabilistic causation is proposed in two levels: type level(General causal) and token levels (Singular causal). In this research,like Eells’s approach, probability causation relationship in type leveland it is considered in General causal meaning. Causal relation isconsidered as typical factor or Property. There are two differentinterpretations: objective interpretation and subjective interpretation.What is explored in this research is objective interpretation in the frameof frequency-propensity interpretation. The main question in thisresearch is consideration in the sense of probabilistic causation theoryand pondering the capability and merits of this concept in against withontological and epistemological challenges.