نشریه فلسفه تحلیلی
پیاپی 41 (بهار و تابستان 1401)

As justice and freedom are the pivots of Jean-Francois Lyotard’s thoughts, what he thinks of art can be a significant reply to the relation of art and politics. According to Lyotard the ruling power of metanarratives of modern societies has been over in post modern ones, since the metanarratives are problematic themselves and they cause some injustices. In order to resist against the metanarratives, Lyotard proposed desire. According to Lyotard desire can appear as different forms, a common thing such as an art. As Lyotard puts it, art is free of modern discussions and negotiations because of intending to be childlike or unconditional inhuman. In the other words human is like a newborn baby without being under any pedagogical method, like a white plate without any drawing on it, without any allegiance to any ideology with specific aims. It has natural needs and aims. This creature exists inside of every mature and immature human. Now art is like an event and wills this creature. What is meant by event is an occurrence which is not compatible with any predefined systems acquiring to reflective judgment being able to challenge the ruler system and manifest the differences. Accordingly, it eliminates the previous methods of explanation and wants to create a fairer world by prescribing new remedies. From this point of view, art cannot support and be the complement of policy making. After having studied, translated, and analyzed Lyotard's opinions and his commentator, this paper aims at clarifying this relation.

The term "spirituality" has many meanings in the West. The evolution of this word started from a traditional meaning in line with the Bible in the fifth century and continued until the acquisition of the opposite meaning of physical and material in later centuries and the acquisition of psychological, social, political and health concepts in the thirteenth to twentieth centuries. Numerous researchers have worked in the field of spirituality. Among them are the books and articles of Case and Ayman, a professor at Bloom Fontaine University and an Old Testament researcher at the university. According to Case and Ayman, three main elements for spirituality can be identified and introduced: 1. The process of the relationship between God and man, which occurs in a moment of the relationship between the two divine and human poles. 2. Gradual process in the sense that the two poles of human and divine are gradually connected. And at this stage, God gradually manifests himself with human beings. 3. Transformation and evolution, in the sense that the process of communication between the two human and divine poles causes the transformation and evolution of human essence. This article, in a descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the different meanings of spirituality from the perspective of “safe” and criticizing their point of view, seeks to answer the question of what are the elements of spirituality? Also in this article, three elements introduced by him have been examined.

Critical rationalism is an approach to biological behavior, and especially to science, that has been introduced by Karl Popper. But his views on the rejection of induction and justification have met with opposition from Susan Haacke as a philosopher of logic. In this article, we will evaluate Haacke's view of Popper's views as logical negativity, and show that Haacke makes every effort to maintain justification methods in various interpretations and forms, mostly under the shadow of induction. We will also show that Haacke's critique of Popper, due to his tendency to justify, suffers from some psychological and semantic confusion with epistemological issues. In response, we will see that Popper denies the connection between rationality and justification, and essentially considers justification impossible, and proposes a three-step model, including problem-solving, finding innovative solutions to the problem, and eliminating some of which there is no need for justification. And there is no supporting evidence. The product of such an approach would be to present creative conjectures and conjectures that, while accepting the existence of an ideal truth and a reality outside our minds, do not establish any relation of reality or truth to the hypotheses, and as a result We will be safe from the problems of justification. That is why we are always ready to criticize our solutions and take a more modest position on our hypotheses and theories.

Perception in philosophy and architecture is intertwined with the concept of motion. With the presence and movement of the audience in space, according to Mulla Sadra's theory of substantial motion, it includes a degree of motion that; Raises the level of perception from material to spiritual. This promotion of perception in architectural spaces is compatible with Mulla Sadra's perceptual hierarchy. Therefore, the present study is interdisciplinary and qualitative with a comparative-analytical approach. The purpose of this study is to analyze the movement levels in architectural spaces, and then to adapt the process of raising perception from the material to the spiritual level in spaces, with Mulla Sadra's perceptual hierarchy. The key questions are included: How does moving in architectural spaces enhance perception from the material to the spiritual level? And how is the level of movement in architectural spaces compatible with the perceptual level of Mulla Sadra? Conclusion In re-reading Mulla Sadra's perceptual issues in architectural spaces, creating true perception requires a sane and reasonable union, through the observer's movement in space. By moving in space, audience experiences a hierarchy of motion, which first involves perception

Although it seems that deconstruction disintegrates everything, it provides a basis for everything in Derrida's philosophy. As Derrida defines deconstruction on collapsing and rebuilding, event has no exception to this definition. Events, like Derrida's other discussions, are so intertwined that we cannot distinguish between them. But what is the event, and why is it an internal matter that takes credit from our internal and intuition? Why is it artificial? Derrida considers architecture to be an event type, and the style of deconstruction in architecture is an event definer? Thus, the explanation of Derrida's view of the event and its relation to art and architecture are manifested in features such undeconstructible, unpredictability of the event. For Derrida, therefore, the event is an instantaneous that even defines architecture in a "moment," and only from this dimension can it reach a consensus with architecture. In addition, deconstruction style in architecture takes us out of the ordinary cognition of form and space, and it can be an objective example of the subject of occurrence in architecture.

This article explains and compares the views of Ibn Sina and G.E. Moore in the field of realist ethics and while discussing the method of intuition in recognizing moral characteristics. Realism in ethics means the objectivity of moral propositions, and therefore moral properties are intuitive. The main issue of research on the formulation of Ibn Sina's views, along with the principles of realism and the method of intuition, is whether the moral propositions under popular opinion follow the same principles that Moore put forward in the discussion of realism in ethics and how they can be intuitive. Moore's moral realism is based on the intuitionism of moral qualities such as good and evil, which are unacceptable to the natural or metaphysical. According to Ibn Sina, moral realism is defined and intuitive based on the moral presuppositions such as good and bad. In this attitude, the good and the bad for the soul are explained as a being whose exaltation and happiness is a real thing. The results of this study show that for Moore, the relationship between moral issues and predicates such as good and bad is an intuitive thing, which is defined as a good relationship with the greatest possible good, and this combination and understanding requires reflection and intellectual maturity of the moral agent. According to Ibn Sina, the relationship between moral issues and moral presuppositions such as good and bad is explained on the basis of the reputation of moral propositions and the intuitions of the wise of the people.

One of the common concerns of Allameh Tabatabai and Friedrich Nietzsche has been the meaning of life; Allameh meant the purpose of life to have a purpose in life, but Nietzsche considered the meaning of life to be equivalent to value. Each has answered the question of whether life has meaning according to their own intellectual foundations, Allameh's approach in confronting the meaning of supernatural life and Nietzsche believes in nature's approach. Allameh proves the purposefulness of the created world, including man, through the attribute of God's wisdom. He believes that living in the light of belief in God and adherence to morality and human behavior makes sense, but Nietzsche denies God and considers religion the cause of human misery and he believes that the more religious a person is, the weaker and more incapable he is. He expresses the meaningless result of life in the form of nihilism. He expresses the meaningless result of life in the form of nihilism and divides it into active nihilism and passive nihilism. Both philosophers believe in the meaning of life, except that Allameh believes that man discovers the meaning of life, but Nietzsche says that man forges the meaning of life.

Martin argues that disjunctivism is the default view for visual experience. This disjunctivism is based upon the notion of indiscriminability: An event is a visual experience if and only if it is indiscriminable through introspection from a veridical visual experience. The argument concludes that the common kind theories, since they are committed to a substantive epistemic principle, are immodest. Thus disjunctivism, is the default view. A number of criticisms have been raised against the argument. According to the main criticism, the condition of indiscriminability is neither necessary nor sufficient condition for visual experience. I deal with the main criticism and also the others. With critically examining these and also Martin’s responses, I claim that the argument is not valid. One of my main reasons is that Martin’s responses to the main criticism aren’t clear and justified. So, until further illuminations, we cannot accept that the condition for visual experience is indiscriminability. Also I explain that the argument, if valid, only concludes that the common kind theories aren’t the default view, not that disjunctivism is the default view. In order to lead to this conclusion, there are further steps to be taken. According to one step, it should be shown that there is no other default view. I cast doubt on the legitimacy of the step. In addition, I argue that disjunctivism based upon the notion of disjunction is different from disjunctivism based upon the notion of indiscriminability. The different disjunctivism could be an alternative default view.

Romantical interpretation of freedom on Berlin view is relied to understanding of his analysis on enlightenment and romantism. But we must already have drawn a clear imagination of other aspects of his thought such as anthropology, history and pluralism, until clarified means of freedom and be able to know foundation of original romantical aspects of his thought. This article tries to prove this claim that negative freedom is inextricably linked to romantic ideas, as if the relationship between freedom and romantic ideas is cut off to ignored, there can never be a way to define freedom as intended by Berlin. So first enumerated the supposed romantic ideas from works of Berlin and then with a Berlin analysis of the romantic era follow the traces of this ideas in the most fundamental part of his thought the concept of freedom until be able to achieve a romantic interpretation of his philosophy.

In Greek philosophy, the later thinkers of Socrates paid more attention to the subject of “anthropology” than their predecessors, and especially in the works of Aristotle, issues related to this subject were presented in a special way. In parallel with him in the East, “ontology” was at the service of “anthropology” from the very beginning, and it received considerable attention, including in the Sankehye school. Naturally, in both intellectual traditions, knowing the human soul has been more important and complex than the human body. The present research is responsible for explaining the intrinsic characteristics of the human soul from the perspective of the founders of the mentioned schools in a comparative way. Although Aristotle considered the soul to be abstract from the monster and the incorporeal, he considered it to be the first perfection of the organic natural body. In his view, the rational soul of man was also the sum of the powers of the vegetable and animal souls. But according to the sage Capila, the soul or Purusha has a very transcendent, transcendental and eternal identity which was neither the cause and the creator of something nor the effect and artifact of something. Purusha is entirely abstract from matter or precreity, but it is the stimulus for the emergence of beings. Belief in the multiplicity of populations is also a necessary necessity for the definition of the soul in peripatetic thought, but considering the attributes of the soul in Sankehya thought, the idea of ​​multiplicity seems very strange.

How to establish an analogy between the two types of natural and artificial selection has been studied and studied by many historians and philosophers of science, biology and evolution. One of the most important sources in this regard is Darwin's manuscripts, which show how, in the process of Darwin's research studies, an analogy between natural and artificial selection was formed in his mind. His approach to analogy is a naturalistic one. In the history of science and knowledge, there are many examples of analogies that have been used both as discoveries and as arguments. According to the new findings of the cognitive sciences, the human mind operates on the basis of analogical reasoning, so that a number of cognitive scientists believe that analogy is at the core of human cognition. Various models in the cognitive sciences have been proposed for analogy. Researches show that the analogical arguments used by Darwin based on cognitive science models, are proportional analogy, with the difference that he used a number of bridging and Contrastive analogies to establish the analogy between natural and artificial selection.

Selective abduction is in contrast with creative abduction as well as Inference to the Best Explanation (IBE). There are two types of selective abduction: Either hypotheses are selected among new and conjectural hypotheses without any prior knowledge ( Pierce s' selective abduction), or the selection of the best hypotheses and explanations is among a large number of possible hypotheses and explanations already known (L. Magnani's selective abduction and G. Schurz's factual abduction). According to both views, as well as an alternative view, which belongs to Dov M. Gabby and John Woods, selective abduction is different from inference to the best explanation. Schurz's factual abduction depends on all three sub-processes of inference, i.e.: colligation, observation, and judgment (c, o, and j); But Pierce's selective abduction, on the other hand, has only a third sub-process, i.e. judgment process (j), and therefore it cannot be regarded as a process of abductive epistemic inference.