نشریه پژوهش های فلسفی
پیاپی 37 (زمستان 1400)

From ancient times until the beginning of the new science, philosophy ruled over the sciences. Subsequently, with the rise of positivism in the first half of the nineteenth century, philosophy flourished in the scientific community. But with the emergence of some schools of philosophy of science in the second half of the twentieth century, it became clear that all sciences were based on some general metaphysical (metaphysical) principle. After that, some of the leaders of contemporary science gradually realized the role of philosophy in science. In recent decades, some important Western universities, including some important Western engineering universities such as MIT, have established philosophy departments in the United States, and in the last ten years, some of the top European and American universities have had good collaborations between philosophers. and the scientists of the experimental sciences have succeeded, and in this short time they have had fruitful results.

In this paper, we first examine the reasons for opposing metaphysics. While assessing these reasons, we intend to reach a plausible stance regarding the relationship between science and metaphysics and its role and importance in scientific activity. There are different views on this old question. We argue that the interaction of metaphysics and science is a complex interaction that can only be defended in the light of a critical approach. In this critical attitude, one should not only pay attention to the role and importance of metaphysics in science but also should have an epistemic humility about his expectations of it.

Is philosophy useful for physics? Many physicists and philosophers believe that it is; but there are those who challenge the usefulness of philosophy for science. Three major objections can be identified in their reasoning: 1. Philosophy’s death diagnosis, which states that philosophy is dead and has nothing new to teach us. 2. Historic-agnostic argument/challenge, which states that there is no historical evidence for the claim that philosophy is useful for science, or if it is, it is unknown to us. 3. The division of property argument, which states that philosophy and science are two distinct fields. The purpose of this article is to respond to these three objections by examining the case study of the relationship between general relativity and philosophy. By looking at the history of the formation and development of general relativity, we will argue that: 1. Philosophy has led to a refinement and deep understanding of the important concepts of covariance and invariance. 2. There is clear historical evidence for the positive influence of philosophy on the development of the core concepts of general relativity, as one of the most important physical theories, as well as the undeniable evidence for the key role of some philosophers in the development of the theory. 3. Physics and philosophy, in seeking answers to fundamental questions, are two highly intertwined fields.

In the last two centuries, a better understanding of nature and significant advances in science and technology have led to the emergence of new and exciting ideas and approaches. Almost all of them are known as the product of contemporary science. Ideas such as evolution in biology, the ideas about the beginning of the universe (models based on the existence of a starting point for the universe or otherwise), and the idea of parallel worlds in physics. Although these ideas have flourished in the context of modern science, they contain important philosophical backgrounds and as a result, have some important philosophical consequences.  In this article, a historical review of the writings and works of Ibn Sina shows that each of these ideas has been presented similarly since ancient times in natural philosophy. Therefore, their position is more philosophical than scientific. Using these theories without considering their metaphysical and non-experimental assumptions will lead to misconceptions. Many of the challenges between science and religion stem from not considering the limits of empirical science and a lack of attention to the metaphysical assumptions of scientific theories. In this article, we will explain Ibn Sina's reasons for or against these theories as one of the first people to explicitly examine the scientific and philosophical aspects of these theories. Ibn Sina's scientific accuracy and admirable scientific spirit can be enlightening for contemporary scholars.

Heisenberg is one of the founders of quantum mechanics, and one of the pioneers and intellectual leaders of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics. He proposed in two seminal papers in 1925 and 1927, the fundamentals of matrix mechanics (1925) as the first formalism of quantum mechanics, and then the uncertainty relations (1927) as one of the essential components of the Copenhagen interpretation. The purpose of this paper is to formulate Heisenberg's philosophical approaches during the formation of quantum mechanics and its Copenhagen interpretation. The main question of the paper is whether philosophical approaches can be formulated in the development of quantum mechanics through Heisenberg's works? To answer this question, two seminal papers by Heisenberg (1925 and 1927) are examined. The research method of the paper is based on the content analysis of the text (physics) of Heisenberg's papers. The findings of this study show that three crucial principles - observability, correspondence, and analogy-can be formulated from Heisenberg's 1925 paper, which has played a key role in the formation of the fundamentals of matrix mechanics. Moreover, from his 1927 paper, some issues are addressed including interpretation, understanding and classical-quantum relation, the role of experience and measurement, the subject of causality, as well as reality. Finally, it is concluded that through these works of Heisenberg, four philosophical approaches can be formulated including empiricism, Unificationism, indeterminism, and anti-causality, as well as anti-realism, which themselves include other sub-approaches.

Whether objects have a substance or not has always been the focus of philosophers. Substratum theory is one of the well-known theories in contemporary analytical metaphysics. It tries to analyze the structure of an object based on the two components of substance and properties. This theory, by introducing the essence of objects as substratum, introduces properties in an empirical approach and provides an explanation of concrete objects or things. Contrarily, a collection of theories from an ontological point of view, with the denial of substratum, considers concrete things to be merely composed of properties and explains the clustering process of the same. This article, while explaining these two theories and judging their claims against each other, implicitly tries to show that modern physics not only needs philosophy to explain the ontological structure of concrete objects, but to go this science beyond the level of properties and phenomena it requires philosophy using specialized concepts to present a picture of the world around.

After the middle of the twentieth century, symptoms gradually appeared which were collectively called the “crisis of medicine”. This crisis gave philosophy, which had been abstracted from medicine since the mid-nineteenth century, an opportunity to reflect. Medical philosophers attributed the crisis to the inflation of the scientific and technical aspects and, consequently, to the weakening of the human aspects of medicine. Therefore, reflection on the nature of medicine became one of the central issues of philosophy in medicine.In this article, I will first highlight the need to study the nature of medicine, explain the various concpetions of the nature of modern medicine - based on the dichotomy- science vs. art , and show their inadequacy and inappropriatness. Finally, I will provide a model to the nature of medicine beyond the realm of science / art. In this model, medicine is a scientific practice, based on judgment, dialogue, communication and social order. This model faces teleological, epistemological, scientific, political, and professional challenges that require serious and continuous reflection on the nature of medicine.

Despite all the ontological doubts about causality, one of the most important pillars of any philosophical theory is the issue of causality, with which it must clarify its task theory. Philosophy of biology as a field of philosophical knowledge has taken various uses of the term: proponents and opponents of the reductionist thesis speak of bottom-up (upward) and top-down (downward) causation, while proponents and opponents of extended evolutionary synthesis talk about reciprocal causation. People like Laland and his colleagues criticize the idea of Mayr including Proximate and Ultimate causation. scientist like Nobel speaks of causality in biological relativity based on an analogy in physics. Some scientists such as Okasha and Woodward, pay attention to causal democracy, while others deny the existence of causal relationships in the field of explaining biological actions and interactions for reasons such as the phenomenon of emergence. In the philosophy of science, there are theories about the properties of the element c causality, which can be used as a criterion to better understand the use of this word and provide a model to reduce disagreements.

The unity or non-unity of science has been one of the most important philosophical issues in the twentieth century. One of the most important answers to the question of the unity of science has been suggested by reductionists. The present article focuses on two prominent examples of such approaches. The first example was taken from the philosophical movements of rational positivism and the second example was chosen from the post-positivist philosophical movements. We have shown that the supposedly successful reductions in science have given rise to the idea that the answer to the question of the unity of science is possible through reduction. We have then argued that the reductionist approach is fundamentally inefficient, inadequate, and incorrect. Reductionism is ineffective because it does not contribute to conceptual and ontological simplification. It is inadequate because, first, it does not cover the ontological diversity of fundamentally different scientific activities, and second, it does not provide an adequate answer to the explanatory need on why one ontological and epistemological layer is more fundamental than the other ones. Reductionism is wrong because, first, it is incompatible with the history of the evolution of scientific theories; second, it does not properly explain the relationship between evidences and theories. Third, according to Foder, it cannot solve the problem of multiple-realizability; fourth, according to Feyerabend, if the incomparability of scientific theories is correct, the possibility of any kind of communication, including deductive communication, is ruled out. The failure of reductionism shows that models like Nigel and Putnam-Oppenheim do not provide a suitable answer to the problem of the unity of science. Therefore, it is suggested that the answer to the problem of the unity of science be pursued through a non-reductionist approach.

Having offered the “argument from bad lot”, Bas van Fraassen has raised an important criticism on the Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE) and challenged scientific realism. Regardless of scientific realism, and given the reliance of today's scientific methods on IBE, this criticism poses a deeper threat to the validity of scientific enquiry. In this article, we will try to provide a way to deal with this threat, according to the structure of the scientific community. Some structural features of the contemporary scientific community have caused the scientific enquiry to be limited to the science derived from the Western tradition and deprived it of the theoretical opportunities of various traditions. The main claim of this article is that paying attention to different traditions together to produce science is a good way to expand scientific enquiry and deal with the mentioned threat. In the first section, we will depict how the argument from bad lot threatens the validity of scientific enquiry. In the second section, we discuss the close relationship between science and tradition, and then examine the status of this relationship in the contemporary scientific society. The final section is devoted to proposing the idea of pluralism regarding the use of the theoretical opportunities of different traditions in scientific enquiry, as a proposed solution to counter this threat.

In this article, after describing the content of the theory of Evolution from Darwin to the formation of modern synthesis or Neo-Darwinism, its theological implications are discussed. In particular, the Neo-Darwinian reading of Evolution is a ground for many Neo-Darwinists to advance the idea of naturalism. A critical aspect in the Neo-Darwinists defense of naturalism is their emphasis on following empirical evidence to shape their worldview. The second approach to Evolution is Intelligent Design. Although they are generally be presented as opposed to Evolution in the sense of a common ancestor, the central idea of this movement is the need for design in the process of Evolution, and they don't necessarily deny the Evolution from a common ancestor. Nevertheless, Neo-Darwinists often accuse the Intelligent Design movement of being unscientific and having religious motives. As a result, despite the scientific efforts of the Intelligent Design movement, there is no positive view of it in academia. But another interesting approach to Evolution is the third-way or post-Darwinian Evolution. It is opposed to intelligent design, but it has crucial criticisms of the Neo-Darwinian Evolution reading based on new biological evidence. But Neo-Darwinists confrontation with this evidence does not seem to be consistent with their claim to follow empirical evidence.

According to Darwin's theory of evolution, John Dewey wanted to change the way we look at the world around us. In the pre-modern days, he strived to achieve the promise of modernity, which was progress and advancement in all fields. Dewey not only foresaw such a step, but also studied the way through it. In this article, we begin with the years when Dewey was an ardent Christian, and deal with the time when he became fascinated with the evolutionary sciences and developed his theory of "experience" with a rationalist approach. According to Dewey's naturalistic approach to man, we are confronted with religious experiences that, in the evolutionary process, are a response to basic human needs and have emerged in the context of different cultures in the form of different religions. In Dewey's view, "religious experience" is a personal dream of man. God, the Hereafter, religion and supernatural things are of this kind. These things are born of human exchange and adaptation to his environment. So for Dewey, there are no other worlds and worlds with different levels or parallel worlds that have recently been expressed on the basis of scientific hypotheses. Spirituality, religion and morality are all natural, experimental, real and of course valuable. Dewey considers man as an organism among millions of other living beings and in connection with them, and deals with the application and function of religious experiences in daily life.

By giving a new definition of Aristotle’s φυσις and Ψυχη Heidegger criticizes science and scientism. Through these interpretations and criticisms, we can infer his opinions about consciousness. Heidegger translates φυσις as “Being itself” and maintains that it is expressed by μορφη that demonstrate a change in the spectrum. The μορφη, indeed, is the consciousness, which is also referred to as lived experience by Heidegger. It has different layers namely behavioral-perceptional, social, and pre-personal layers. He argues that by objectifying experiences, science eliminates the non-objective aspect of lived experience. It is not possible for science to study lived experience. Therefore, a science of the consciousness about the nature of consciousness is not attainable; because, consciousness is no longer consciousness when it becomes the subject of scientific examination. Heidegger rents different terms to interpret consciousness such as μορφη, truth, λόγος, and categories. He argues that consciousness in all these terms includes a duality that its relationship with an external affair is preserved. It appears that consciousness, φυσις and Being are intertwined in Heidegger’s viewpoint. He emphasizes that consciousness is man or Dassin’s connection with the external world and whatever inferred from this connection, including science, is of second order.

In this article, we discuss how body plays a role in cognition. For this purpose, constitutive and causal approaches in the cognitive science are reviewed. This review addresses the problems of these approaches, including that both of them ultimately lead to a Cartesian-objective understanding of body-cognition relationship as well as reduce the body to the physical body. In addition, proponents of constitutive approach such as Clark cannot reconstruct the phenomenological formulation of constitution at the embodied cognition, which results in return of Cartesian approach to cognition. Given Heidegger's phenomenological approach, we explain these problems and suggest a way to overcome them. Heideggerian foundations help us to formulate two notions of embodiment: ready-to-hand embodiment and fundamental embodiment. Both notions of embodiment deny the physicalist understanding of embodiment which is dominant in cognitive science. In the next step, we examine Heidegger's attempt to move to a more fundamental level in the analysis of being in view of his hints about embodiment in Being and Time and explain why Heidegger does not remain at the embodied analysis of being.

Meaning is concerned with what a language expresses about the world in which we live or any imaginary or possible world. The study and analysis of meaning and its different angles is called semantics. Semantics is usually concerned with the investigation of the meanings of the words, expressions, sentences and sometimes to the meanings of utterances in discourse or the whole meaning of a text. There are different approaches in which meaning is studied in language. For example, philosophers investigate the relation between linguistic expressions, such as words of a language and people, objects and events in the world to which these words refer (e.g., references and signs). Linguists examine the way in which meaning is created in a language and differentiate among various types of meaning. Meanwhile, there are some studies on the semantic structure of the sentences (propositions). In this article, meaning is studied from different perspectives. It is hoped that this study could be useful and helpful to the field of philosophy.

Story has a very critical role in the formation of critical thinking skills. The purpose of the prison research is to explore the potential benefits of normal stories in the formation and promotion of critical thinking skills in children. The present research has utilized content analysis method to explore the extent and components of critical thinking skills in the view of Richard Paul in stories authored for children at the age range of “C” (10-12 years) all of which were published during 1961 -2006 and listed as appropriate books in the Council of Children’s Books. The results indicate that the components of implications and consequences, information, data, evidence, experience, purpose, moral reasoning capabilities are in a better position than other components. The weakest components are assumptions, confidence in thinking, opinions and inferences, and interpretations. Also, most of the successive growth of stories in terms of critical thinking components has occurred in the late works and in the eighties, regardless of the cross-sectional growth of the forties.

Place is the most fundamental concept in architecture and is a necessity of architectural design, and since we face changes in our understanding of place notion in the modern era which have had distinctly profound and sometimes unpleasant effects on modern and subsequent designs- in a way that architecture has largely neglected its primary task of making the noble place of human life, and its responsibility in human dwelling dimension- in order to find the roots of the evolution in place nature and its meaning, we will answer these two question: what the concept of place has been for ancient thinkers? What have been the reasons for changing the understanding of place in the modern era? How these changes have affected the understanding of place in modern architecture? and yet we will try to understand the concepts of place in ancient Greece (as the origin of western thoughts especially modern thinking) versus the modern, and finally the main findings of this study are the massive semantic transformation of place in modern age and its replacement by space in modern architecture design which mainly is the result of major attention paid to the extendedness of place, the emergence of functionalism in degradation of place, and the commercialization of place.

The French scholar Jan-Francoisa Lyotard (1925-98) deconstructs from categories such as speech and language and places the image and play against it. He places a postmodernist visual sensibility against the modernist speech sensitivity. He comes up with figural logic. Lyotard has the critical thinking and offers new ways to critique contemporary intellectual and cultural status in various political, social, and artistic fields. These new practices are facing with many challenges, but at the same time are the motivating and inspiring. The general criteria of truth and falsehood, right and wrong, good and evil are highly problematic within the theoretical framework of Lyotard's thinking and cannot be taken for granted. But in the absence of such rules, it seeks responsible thought and action. Lyotard presents a complex picture of art and culture. An image in which realism, modernism, postmodernism coexist together in all periods of art work. So, contrary to the postmodern situation, in which the postmodern phenomenon of the late twentieth century is considered in response to the question: what is postmodern? The postmodern issue is related to a matter of aesthetics style rather than historical period.

The question of the relationship between time and literature has long been the subject of discussions by various thinkers and philosophers. One of the contemporary writers whose works manifestly presents such as the French writer and thinker, Maurice Blanchot. The purpose of the present paper is to examine this relationship in Blanchot's works. A careful study of his fiction reveals the evolution that took place, in the first place, in his understanding of the question of time, and secondly in his continual attempt to challenge the views of other thinkers on the same subject, an attempt which has seemingly led Blanchot to a new formulation of the concept of time. An elaboration on this requires tracing the idea back to the definitions and discussions found among his endless dialogues with the other contemporary writers and thinkers (especially with his famous friend Emmanuel Levinas).

Undoubtedly, the root of Adorno's thinking can be traced to his belief in the destruction of those philosophical ideas which seek to create immutable universals in the form of frozen and sound philosophical systems. The starting point for him, therefore, is not in the same idea, but in the contradiction or otherwise, which is only in one aspect of this oneness and not in its complete drowning. That is why the non-like is highlighted in order to breathe the breeze of freedom from falling into the vicious circle of absoluteness. In this regard, he defines the purpose of each work of art in a kind of irreconcilability with the whole. According to Adorno, this totality in the field of culture and art, in a pragmatic way, appears more in a phenomenon called the culture industry; because works of art are caught up in the mechanism of bureaucratization and assimilation by the commodity-production economic system, in which the individual subject is diminished. Such a danger is felt more and more in the cultural products of today's Iranian society (especially in the field of music), which can be examined in terms of Adorno's critical theories and the structure of Iranian classical music.

The quarrel between Plato and the poets in the Utopia and try to exclude them from there is a very important subject in the Republic. He in the book III explains the limits for poems and determines the poems that can be read for youths and the poems that cannot be read for them. This radical Platonic approach to the poets and their poems can be linked today to the many different media especially TV and its programs. In Plato's view, our reaction to the different events in the everyday life is a copy of our reaction to the poem. This problem is today linked to the TV and other social media like cinema. TV in only an instrument for distribution and transmission, and does not present any new method for interpreting reality. In another word, TV only present reality as it is and TV is like the Platonic poet in this respect. We can recite the Platonic objection on poem, also on the TV and its functions. In the present article we will try to survey the nature and the functions of TV by the Platonic method of critiquing poets in the Utopia.

In this research, we intend to examine Immanuel Kant's definition of nature in his critique of judgment in both parts, i.e., aesthetics and teleology. Then, we will evaluate these definitions of nature with the criteria of different trends of tourism such as nature tourism. Then we answer the question: Do Kant's definitions of nature in teleology and the relationship of nature with beauty and sublimity and the examples mentioned in this book, provide a proper Criteria for the goals, aspirations, and scopes of nature tourism? Do tourists of nature take us for a walk in the nature that Kant defines or sometimes describes?  Supposedly, both have a lot in common with emphasis on human ends and the importance of morality in praising beauty of nature. We search with a descriptive-analytical method to answer this question: How can a framework for aesthetics of tourism be provided from Kant's third critique? Research studies show that in order to organize the framework of aesthetics of tourism based on Kant's third critique, it is better to first outline the basic rubrics of the critique of the teleological judgment. In the second part of the third critique, considering the organic position of nature and its purpose and also the mechanistic expansion of nature under the supersensible principle, while eliminating the contradiction of this duality, the role of the purpose of nature and human as the ultimate purpose are discussed. In this part, an expansive view is seen for the relationship between man and nature with regard to the ultimate purpose and final purpose. According to the general point of view, human being, from the purposes and recognizing his/her position as the ultimate purpose and paying attention to the final purpose, will reach to a more detailed point of view. Human being, reflects on natural effects and charms and free and dependent beauties based on nature, artifacts and artworks. As a result, the role of beauty and sublimity of nature in cultivating the moral dimension and the promotion of human culture is considered as one of the basic foundations of aesthetics of tourism, especially nature tourism.

Helmuth Plessner, beside Max Scheler and Arnold Gehlen, is known as one of the great founders of new philosophical anthropology movement. From among new anthropological theories, however, perhaps none has recently come to the center of attention and begun to flourish more than Plessner’s, not only in the field of philosophical anthropology, but also in science and technology. The ground for such a so-called “Plessner Renaissance” shall be immediately known in this article, once the special place Plessner’s theory occupies in both the prominent contemporary explanatory paradigms, in general, and philosophical-anthropological theories, in particular, is specified. In doing so, Plessner’s philosophical contribution is determined as: A non-reductive naturalistic explanatory paradigm as a middle ground between new Darwinism, social-cultural-historical constructivism, and naive transcendentalism. A phenomenological-hermeneutical account of the biological life, in general. A biological-based transformational philosophical anthropology, in particular. The focus of the present article is on Plessner’s contribution to the philosophy of biology as well as philosophical anthropology.

The undeniable success of neuroscience in explaining human mental states, which in the past were explained in terms of supernatural concepts, has led many modern-day scientists and philosophers to advocate physicalist methods in explaining human nature. According to this view, science, by recognizing the physiological structures of man, especially the brain and its functions, will finally be able to explain human nature with all its features through mere physical concepts. The most important challenge to this view has always been the question of consciousness, or in its traditional sense, how the mind and body relate. However, contemporary scientists try to explain the phenomenon of consciousness through the physical sciences by presenting new scientific theories and concepts about the mechanisms of the brain and its relation to mental states. The purpose of this article is to show that phenomenal awareness is the most important challenge to the theory of materialism. Examining the concept of consciousness and dividing it into two parts, "perceptual consciousness" and "phenomenal consciousness", we have argued that scientific theories at best provide only an explanation of perceptual consciousness, while challenging The main science of the natural sciences is the explanation of phenomenal consciousness. But phenomenal consciousness is beyond the reach of the physical sciences because of the inherent nature of mentality, unless it recognizes first-person perspective science.

In Phenomenology of the Spirit, Hegel depicts the dialectical structure of the history of European human consciousness. In all the transitions of consciousness to different outcomes, he has recognized the necessity and dialectical relation and follows it in all fields of history and fields of thought in different currents. In the chapter on the spirit, we encounter two very important currents in social history, namely the French Revolution, and in the history of thought, that is, Kant's philosophy of morality, which appear in two consecutive sections. And it's as if Hegel found a close connection between Robespierre's assassination rule and Kantian philosophy of morality. Where Robespierre's abstract freedom, in order to create absolute freedom in the realization of his generalized partial will, destroys any institution or detail as a factor in disrupting the realization of his free will, and begins a period of tyranny and terror. It is as if such a claim of a common will that tolerates no detail or opposition becomes the internal tyranny of Kant's general moral law (the realization of which is the only way to attain freedom) in order to destroy nature, desires, customs and objective institutions, and so on. And it creates fear and anxiety due to endless contradictions, and the moral person, like the revolutionary person, is trapped within his abstract will by the complete elimination of objectivity, which, according to Hegel, will have dangerous consequences.

Consciousness, which is one of the central issues of German idealism, has received various interpretations among German philosophers. Assuming the thing-in-itself, Kant presented consciousness in pieces and presented it in the form of three critiques. After him, Reinholt and Schultze, by criticizing the thing-in-itself, provided the ground for a new interpretation of consciousness by Fichte. Fichte with approval Schultze's critique of the thing-in-itself, rightly gathered consciousness into the unity of the absolute subject. He then gave a revolutionary interpretation of how consciousness develops by creating a dialectical relationship between consciousness, self-consciousness, and intersubjectivity. In this article, we try to explain Fichte's interpretation of consciousness according to the relationship that he establishes between consciousness, self-consciousness and intersubjectivity, and to present the calendar of consciousness and self-consciousness in the political situation. He first argues that consciousness logically requires an order in which self-consciousness provides its development and He then considers the order in consciousness as dependent on the creation of a relationship that occurs in the process of recognition between subjects.

With no exaggeration, Martin Heidegger is one of the most prominent thinkers of the twentieth century, who critically examines the 2,500-year history of the West as a manifestation of subjectivism and technological rationality, and places his efforts on the foundation of the paradigm of knowledge. The modern world collapsed and turned to ontology. The premise of this paper is based on the principle that if modern politics is based on the will to power, the gap between subject and object, and the dominance of technological rationality, Heidegger intends to break away from politics by turning from epistemology to ontology. Based on the relationship between master and slavery of the modern world, and introduce a policy based on ontology, which ensures the elimination of the gap between subject and object and the openness of man to himself, the world and the other.

What is the role of Time in Heidegger's ontological interpretation of Kant? Heidegger's interpretation of Kant is a controversial and different one in current interpretation of Kant's philosophy. In the light of understanding the meaning of Being, Heidegger works out Kant and intends to consider Kant's project as an ontological one. Now with regard to the main question of this article, we want to show essential and basic role of Time in Heidegger's interpretation of Kant. The role which, in our view, is a connective thread in Heidegger's idea about Kant as far as we can't understand mechanism of Heidegger's interpretation without it.

Kant limits aesthetics to judgment of taste. The faculty of judgment issues ugly and beautiful arbitration in relation to the pleasure of the external object. Kant considers aesthetic judgment as a cognitive judgment a priori sentence, and inserts it under the title a priori mental categories, indicates: "quantity", "quality", "modality", and "relation". With this approach the aesthetic judgment while being a "singular judgment", must be accordance with the a priori of quantity requirement, have "generally" and "including validity", and so on its "purposiveness" from, because of the inclusion in the a priori category of "relation" must have no purpose. Also the a priori category of quality requires the judgment of taste not to interest, this requirement in the issuance process of aesthetic judgment no conceptual interest should be involved, while the imagination faculty despite all possibilities can only simulate the understanding faculty, and without its conseptualazion cannot issue a general judgment.

Metaphors in the new approach allow us to better understand ethics and bioethics due to their inherent capacities, such as highlighting and diversifying scripts from source domains. According to some, metaphors are not limited to conventional metaphors, not merely epistemological, but we need complex and unconventional metaphors for deep thinking and thoughtful cultural considerations. Stem cells, on the other hand, have extraordinary properties for the source domain in the unconventional and complex moral metaphor. Hence, the author has used the conceptual metaphor of cell for ethics. The fundamental question of this quest is: What aspects of morality does the conceptual metaphor of cell in ethics highlight for us? The findings of this study are as follows: 1. The conceptual metaphor of cell for ethics, unlike most ethical metaphors that are simple and common metaphors and naturally have less power for ethics, is a powerful, unconventional and complex metaphor and can handle ethical analysis well; 2. The metaphor mentioned in ethics is formed by moral phenomena and recognizes the distinction between religion and mysticism; 3. In the light of the cellular metaphor of ethics, the difference between ethical performance in different moral situations and ethical agents is better explained; 4. This metaphor, unlike other metaphors, highlights the idiosyncrasy of ethics, not a feature or few ethical features.

The theory of the divine command is one of the main theories of the philosophy of ethics, which discusses religion and its relationship with morality, the good and bad of actions, divine command and prohibition, and other moral issues. This theory has had many fans throughout history, and religious and moral thinkers and various religious schools have expressed their views on it. In this regard, the aim of this study is to explanation and critique of Robert Adams and Ash'arites on the theory of the divine. In this article, the theoretical foundations and views of the Ash'arites and Robert Adams under the theory of the divine and in the field of ethics are examined separately. From Robert Adams' point of view, taking a position on morality has been examined in two axes: "good meaning" and "meaning of obligation", and from the Ash'arite point of view, it has been examined in two sections: "good and ugliness" and "moral requirements". According to Adams, the source of moral goodness is the nature and intrinsic attributes of God. Also, from his point of view, value concepts have objective reality and have an external reality, and the work of reason is only to discover and understand it. The Ash'arites, under the theory of the divine order, have paid more attention to the good and ugliness of deeds and believe that the good and ugliness of deeds are not inherent but religious. It is the will of God.

In this article, we argue that Muslim scholars have divided divine knowledge into three categories including substantial knowledge, knowledge of the creatures before creation, and knowledge of creatures and objects after creation. In fact, there is disagreement among the Islamic thinkers over the divine knowledge, its quality, and features. The point of controversy revolves around the wide disagreements over the divine knowledge of the creatures and objects both before and after creation. Therefore, divine knowledge over creatures before and after creation has always been the point of ongoing and challenging rational and dialectical discussion and debate. We examine this issue comparatively between the three Islamic thinkers (Mulla Sadra, Shaarani and Assar).

Ibn Sina, as a Muslim Philosopher, has given a famous triple division of knowledge and wisdom that is relying on Aristotelian philosophical tradition. Ibn Sina tries to rationalize his triple division of knowledge and wisdom based on many properties of its subject matter. In his view, the subject matter of human being’s knowledge has three kinds, first it mentally and externally needs to matter, and second it mentally is in needless to matter, but externally needs to it, third it mentally and externally is in needless to matter. Based on this foundations, he introduces three kinds and divisions of wisdom including theology, mathematics and physics. But if we consider his philosophical and epistemological foundations regarding the subject matter of knowledge, there can be appeared some problems and contradictions concerning the knowledge of logic, mathematics and theology, as the knowledge of God. Since based on Ibn Sina’s theory, logic, mathematics and theology, as the science of God, can’t be considered as one sections of wisdom.

How to create and consequently the creation theory of ex nihilio it has been one of the main challenges between Islamic philosophers and theologians. Numerous interpretations in this aspect, have been examined in the form of a confrontation between temporal and the eternal. The Ash'arites know the origin of creation from non-existence" create something out of nothing’’ and they believe that pre-occurrence events are neither objects nor essences. In this regard, the beginning of creation is nothing, and the world with the will and the absolute power of God, It is created without the mediation of non-existence. His will and power negate any necessity and intermediary in creation and the creatures are not effusion and coercive emanation by God; but essentially it depends on the free will and authority of the creator. Conversely, Mullah Sadra believes in the creation in time and essential origination. He used "not of anything" in creation. He proves and by modifying the term ex nihilio the occurrence of the world and the creation ex nihilio with philosophical arguments and raises a new perspective and based on the motion of the substance. The world is temporal generated. In his view the world is essentially renewing, and the creation in time of the universe the creation means of world "with time" not "in time".

The question of what a form is and whether it is substance or breadth is one of the basic questions in ancient and Islamic philosophies and the answer to it has been one of the most important and first concerns of philosophers. Among the philosophers, the views of Ibn Sina (following Aristotle) and Suhrawardi are more interesting than those of other philosophers. Ibn Sina has accepted the form and essence of it and its function in the substance and the needlessness of the substance to the accidence and the need for the accidence to the substance and has justified his speech with several supporting arguments. In contrast to Suhrawardi, he challenges and abandons the Aristotelian-Ibn Sinai view and offers a new understanding of the outside world. In this article, these two views have been explained, analyzed and evaluated with an analytical method and with the aim of correctly understanding the reality, and it has been concluded that Suhrawardi's view is more justified and explanatory in comparison with Ibn Sina's view.

The philosophical God is explained by philosophical concepts and terms such as ‘being, cause’, ‘pure Act’ that in addition to them, in Uthulujiyya have also spoken of ‘pure One’, ‘light’ and ‘unthinking.’ In Al-Kindi, in addition to the first two terms, ‘agency’ and ‘Truth’ have been spoken of for the concept of God. The present issue is a comparative study of the conceptualization of God with Al-Kindi and Uthulujiyya to determine the degree of Al-Kindi's independence from Uthulujiyya or to determine the degree of similarity between Al-Kindi`s thought and the text of Uthulujiyya in the conceptualization of God. Therefore, there are questions raised, about how approach these common terms, semantically are in Uthulujiyya and Al-Kind’s thought? And how adaptable that are their application for Uthulujiyya and Al-Kindi? Can Al- Kindi's thought and the book of Uthulujiyya about the concept of God be reconciled? In this article, we examine the concepts in both and analyze them, we find the concept of God in Uthulujiyya and Al-Kindi in concepts such as being, cause and One, Close to each other but in Concept of Aysa and Moeeis are different.

Angels play a central role for Augustine in the Bible and, consequently, in the doctrine of salvation. In his works, he seeks to design a structure to explain the ontological position of angels in order to introduce them as important elements of the theology of salvation. Belief in angels as the helpers of Christ, and Christ himself as the agent of salvation, raises a fundamental question in Augustine's thought: how can the functional role of angels in the process of salvation be considered in the context of the Bible in view of Christ as the Savior of mankind. The authors believe that Augustine interprets the Bible in three stages to solve this dilemma: first, he offers a new interpretation of the theology of the Bible in order to give a different color to the incarnation, and to maintain Christ's superiority over the angels; Second, it describes the role of angels in mediating salvation in view of Christ's saving dignity, and third, it outlines a system of spiritual battle. However, studies show that he did not succeed in this goal. In this study, we aim to consider the basics of the theology of salvation according to the role of angels in Augustine's thought and how it is combined with the place of Christ's salvation, relying on works such as Genesis and commentaries on the Holy Trinity, Psalms and the City of God and his other works. Examine with interpretive-analytical method.

Since early times, Plato’s ideas have been assumed as universal entities as opposed to the particulars. More exact analysis of Plato’s terminology, however, shows the contrary. There is no term for “universal” and “particular” in his terminology at all, and he rather uses the words “whole” [کل] and “part” [جزء], which, considering their similitude to “universal” [کلی] and “particular” [جزئی], have been extremely mistaken for the two latter. These terms are developed in the middle Dialogues being closely related with the controversial issue of ideas. Plato regards each idea as one and simple; however, Parmenides’ criticisms urge him to reconstruct his views. To resolve this problem, he makes use of the term “whole” which implicates a middle state between the One and the multitude in the hierarchy of unity. There is nothing absolutely simple and with the exception of the One, all things include parts. In a sense, however, the idea can be considered as one, for although it includes parts, it cannot be reduced to them and so it is somehow independent of them. Such a kind of unity, lying inferior to the absolute One and higher than the multitudes, is called the whole and belongs to the ideas. Every idea is a whole and possesses the highest possible unity after the One. So “wholeness” is almost a synonym for unity or a second unity. It is not the case that the wholeness appertains to ideas, but the particulars also participate in it.

In this essay, we try to address a fundamental issue in the philosophy of science, namely the conflict between realism and antirealism in Quine's philosophy. There seems to be an inner tension in his views on the question of the reality of unobservable entities or reference of theoretical terms. In order to refute his seemingly inconsistent position, we first begin with the concept of ontological commitment, which he formulated in contrast to the position of his teacher, Carnap. In the following, by expressing the thesis of "the inscrutability of reference" and "naturalized epistemology", we show that there seems to be a conflict between Quine's views. In the end, even with the acceptance of non-conflict, Quine's defense of realism is still not immune to criticism.

Husserl's departure for the rejecting of the duality (subject and object) inherent in the nature of the Western metaphysical tradition is the transcendental structure of consciousness. Hence the innate foundation of consciousness is intention. The intention is the act of consciousness and practical objectification; That is, by resorting to methodological and Noesis steps, objects from the type of perception can emerge and are included in the consciousness of the mind. Therefore, in addition to sensory intuition, consciousness has the power of intuition of essences. Therefore, consciousness is always associated with its object. In this way, Husserl's methodological axis in phenomenology is the return to objects, and this return is provided by the power of human comprehension and makes the world its intention's object. This article seeks to explain how the phenomenon of the world is made in the realm of consciousness, as well as how the pure subject and advanced mind in the face of the objective world as the only method of understanding and receiving the universe can be an objectifying action.

One of the most important arguments against scientific realism is underdetermination, so realists should address the argument satisfactorily and give an appropriate response to it. Underdetermination divides into holist and contrastive forms; in this article, we will only deal with the contrastive form. By examining different responses, it will turn out that while they are successful in some cases, there are instances where responses are not satisfactory. Specifically, two formulations of Newtonian mechanics are examined and the examination reveals an important instance of underdetermination that cannot be accounted for by most responses. We argue that the appropriate option is ontic structural realism that can resolve the underdetermination. We also should emphasize that ontic structural realism is empirical and a posteriori, meaning that the truth of its claim must be examined on a case-by-case basis.

Nietzsche believed that metaphysicians considered their beliefs to be true and gave their ideas an objective truth. Nietzsche claims that all human values and beliefs, including belief in God, arose from the perspective of the desire for power and in order to preserve and preserve human life and usefulness; Without being able to give an objective existence to these ideas. This is exactly where Nietzsche finds the Western metaphysics vulnerable, because the followers of this knowledge considered the personal truth according to their own interpretation, thus removing the role of preserving life from the attributes of God and turning it against themselves. . Nietzsche, on the other hand, analyzed the pragmatist basis of the idea of God and reconstructed it in the next step. This article tries to show the philosopher's plan for God by analyzing the history of metaphysics in Nietzsche's thought and its relation to the classical idea of God, as well as trying to design another human being in the world to come.