نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 40 (پاییز و زمستان 1400)

The present article describes the open question argument and while analyzing the semantics of ethics in Ibn Arabi’s view, deals with a critical comparison of these two views. From a point of view, the perception of good depends on the understanding of the truth of existence, and until existence is accepted as absolute good, the interpretation of the instance of good is not possible. However, philosophical ethics theory of Moore does not tend to such an ontological interpretation, and limits the good to the scope of semantic discussions. At first glance, the ontological interpretation of good, as a presupposition, seems to be hidden from Moore's view. But to formulate more comprehensive theory of ethics, it is necessary to moderate both views. With an acceptable interpretation of the theory of unity of existence, the mystical doctrine of good can be recognized as a basis for Moore's intuitionism. Also, by discovering the ontological assumptions from the inside of semantic theory of him, one can answer doubts about the objectivity and reality of ethics

From Aquinas’s viewpoint the intellect is just one of the Faculties of the human soul, and not identical with the very essence of the soul and thus human being possesses an intellect. On the other hand, unlike Plato, he believes that man has no innate concept but he can separate or abstract the forms (Ideas) of natural things. The origin of human concepts is the material world, so the Intellect‘s operation arises from sensation. The intellect knows nothing but what it receives from the senses. From this point of view Aquinas must be seen as an empiricist. Thomas is, however, a Christian philosopher too. God is the immaterial truth, so the natural power of the created intellect falls short to enable it to see the essence of God. Consequently, he believes that humans are sometimes given non-material ideas through divine grace. It increases the intellectual powers so that the forms are ultimately perceived by the human intellect. Nonetheless, in order to have these forms, some supernatural disposition should be added to the intellect.

Philosophers and historians of science believe in a particular metaphor for every century in the history of science. Meanwhile, the nineteenth century is under the metaphor of the train, which is the embodiment of the steam engine. On the other hand, at the same time, the metaphor of the train plays a decisive role in nineteenth-century literature and it becomes one of the factors on which the plot of the story is based. So in the nineteenth century, the metaphor of the train, which is a tangible form of the steam engine for people, spread everywhere and it found a decisive role in the nineteenth-century literature. This metaphor becomes one of the factors on which the plot of the story is based. After introducing the train metaphor as the dominant metaphor in nineteenth-century science and literature, the paper analyzes the metaphor in Anna Karenina's novel by theme analysis strategy and based on the theory of Lakoff and Johnson's conceptual metaphors.

The concept of infinity in mathematics was one of the main points of difference between the four schools of philosophy of mathematics in the early decades of twentieth century and it is really interesting to review this puzzling concept from a historical perspective. Four schools, Platonism, Formalism, Logicism, and Intuitionism tried to have an acceptable justification on the ontological aspect of infinite numbers and sets but it does not seem that any of them succeeded in their mission. Among these schools, Wittgenstein followed his own unique way and with his Socratic Method criticized all of them. Most commentators and critics believe that Wittgenstein had a finitistic account in the last period of his philosophical work. However, this essay by referring to his lectures on foundation of mathematics, Cambridge 1939, challenged their views and came up with Wittgenstein's criticism of finitistic account.

Islamic theologians and philosophers  are disagree on the subject of issuing plurality from unity which is followed in Islamic philosophy under the title of the Al-Wahed or unity rule that says “no more than one is issued from the one”. Islamic theologians based on theological criteria and the contents of narrated documents reject this rule. However, most of Islamic philosophers believe in the originality and correctness of this rule. In this article, first, the contents of the rule have been introduced and then the arguments of both sides debated. Two important theological arguments against the rule discussed more profoundly. First, the claim that this rule entails the denial of the will of God; second, this rule entails the denial of the power of God. Then, in evaluating the second argument, about twenty verses of the Holy Qur'an are categorized in four groups and it has been proved that the rule of unity, whether true or false, does not contradict the verses of the Holy Qur'an.

On evolutionary naturalist approach, human desire for art and beauty, is the product of his evolution and one of the many adaptations that has been gained through natural and sexual selection during the struggle for survival. Accordingly, the modern man desire for art and beauty is the result of a genetic planning that remains of its oldest ancestors. In support of this claim, this approach relied on such things as universality, ancientity, and the ancient history of art as well as its instinct enjoyment. Evolutionary aesthetics utilizes the achievements of various sciences, in particular evolutionary psychology, to seek to justify, from a scientific and naturalistic point of view, the constant companion of arts to humans and to find logical and theoretical reasons for it. From the perspective of the theorists in this field of art and aesthetics, the result of the mechanism of natural and sextual selection, and therefore arising from human instincts, is rooted in human nature.

Aristotle, the famous Greek philosopher, discussed tragedy in poetics but he did not care the “Gods”. While historical studies show that the “Gods” play an important role in tragedy. In this study we try to determine the causes of ignoring the “Gods” in tragedy with Aristotle. The method is descriptive-analytical and library resources have been used. In this study we first examine some of the Aeschylus, Sophocles and Euripides’s tragedies and examine Aristotle’s vision in this regard. The main question of this study is: what are the causes of ignoring the role of “Gods” in tragedy with Aristotle? The result of this study that can be used by researchers of philosophy and theatre show that the causes of ignoring the role of the gods in the event of tragedy by Aristotle are: realistic, logical and rational view of world phenomena, maintaining religious and moral principles and as well as belief in man as a creature of intellection and choice