نشریه اندیشه فلسفی
پیاپی 6 (بهار 1401)

Criticism of the history of philosophy and epistemology certainly requires great courage Because the effects and consequences of this can have dangerous consequences. When we ignore any metaphysical and meta-human being and explain any epistemological issue in general in explaining our knowledge strategy the result can then lead to nihilism, nihilism, disorder, and anarchism, which can be dangerous and toxic to both the individual and society. While we expect to encounter such nonsense in Rortychr('39')s thought, On the contrary, the philosopher in question claims that his thought will not lead to what has been mentioned. Rather, it is the percentage of pleasure, happiness and bliss for human beings; Because, however, there is no more talk of truth and goodness But by widening the solidarity between the human "us" as much as possible, it seeks to change this path and lead to a human utopia. Our purpose in writing this article is to examine and analyze the place of the epistemological foundations of ethics in Rortychr('39')s thought.

Putnam argues that accepting semantic externalism would require refuting the brains-in-a-vat skeptical hypothesis, and as a result, the skeptic will not succeed in proving her claim. Putnam's argument, however, is epistemically circular and inconclusive. The present article is devoted to evaluating Wright and Noonan's attempt to provide a plausible version of Putnam's argument. Based on the evaluation of these arguments, it was determined that (1) Wright and Noonan's arguments can at best only show that I am not a brain in a vat, but without the use of any auxiliary premises, they can not prove that we are not brains in a vat; (2) Contrary to Wright's claim, this premise of his argument that In BIVese, “brain-in-a-vat” does not refer to brains-in-a-vat, and its result, that is, that my language is not BIVese, lead his argument to be epistemically circular;  and (3) Noonan's attempt to avoid epistemic circularity has not led to the desired result, and his argument, like Wright's, is epistemically circular.

Heidegger argues that Aletheia means non-concealment to the Greeks, which is inherent in beings, but Plato, believing in the proverbial world, introduced truth as conformity and transferred it to human reason. For this reason, truth lost its inherent character and became in accordance with cognition of its own, and thus of the conventional dichotomies of philosophy. Although Mulla Sadra has fundamental similarities with Heidegger, he considers truth to have multiple meanings, and in the third stage of his philosophical thought, by attaining sympathy, with his special interpretation of Platonic philosophy, he removes the conventional dualities of philosophy before him. He reaches and reaches unificationism and considers the truth in Plato as a matter of existential levels and accepts it. In this article, with a descriptive-analytical method and with library tools, while looking at the truth in Plato, we will examine the views of Heidegger and Mulla Sadra and finally extract Sadra's critiques of Heidegger's thinking about the truth.

The movement of translating the texts of Greek philosophy into Arabic during the 2nd and the 3rd centuries especially in the period of caliphate of Mansour Davaniqi, was a main cause of the glory of the Islamic college or by the act of Muslim philosophers like Ibn Sina. At least from 17th century Western philosophy has moved in a way that is different from what we know of Islamic philosophy and if we need to have deep knowledge of it we need to either be expert in Western languages or to use the translations of their original texts of Western philosophy. The text of Western philosophy, however, have been written in several languages like English, German and French and a scholar in philosophy, in spite of his proficiency in English, to be familiar with works written in other European languages, he needs to the help of translators. This article explains the necessity of translating philosophical texts of Western philosophy and some entailments of it.

The subject of ethics and its principles (philosophy of ethics) is of particular importance. Ethics with Two Other Fields of Practical Wisdom (Politics and Education) for some reason it was out of the question. The reasons such as uncertainty about moral principles on the one hand And the trick of Avicenna to infuse theoretical wisdom (philosophy) with the Islamic world By entrusting practical wisdom to the Sharia on the other hand. These reasons have led to the exclusion of practical wisdom, including politics and ethics, from philosophical discussions, and these never found their rightful place in philosophy or in the law.This has led the good(Hosn) and evil(Ghobh) to the theologians and limited to the topics of prophecy and Imamate.

In this article, which is written by descriptive-analytical and inferential methods, first, the philosophical implications of the metaphor of mind as the computer, were inferred from three perspectives: ontological, epistemological, and anthropological; Then, the elements of the curriculum were deduced from the mentioned philosophical implications, and finally, the implications of the metaphor in education were criticized. Since we think based on metaphors, according to the above metaphor the mind is passive and has a mechanistic view to the student. The student does not have individuality and freewill. Evaluation based on this approach is based on measuring low levels of educational goals and measuring memory instead of deep learning. The criticisms that have been made show that such an attitude towards human beings is not acceptable from a philosophical and especially from an educational point of view. The above-mentioned metaphor can only be useful in explaining the function of the mind or brain on the basis of a weak version of functionalism, and has no further implications.