فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال هفدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 67، پاییز 1400)

Ibn Sina says that if we have a piece of knowledge about the past or the future, then our knowledge is “potentially” about the external world. But he does not clarify the meaning of this “potentiality”. We show that if we take Ibn Sina's “the potential” view as the potentiality of the object of truth and then return it to the material causes, then by means of considerable modification and reconstruction we can obtain a reasonable kind of minimalist holism resolution: the object of knowledge to a future thing is its all material causes in the present time and the object of knowledge to a past thing is its all material effects in the present time. We will prove this presentist resolution by means of a kind of determinant reason of comparison with Ibn Sina's definition by a description of comparison with Ibn Sina's phrase that a thing can be distinct by its all causes and of the comparison between the validity of the Minimalist Holism Resolution and our knowledge about the past and the future in the ordinary situations (i.e. without considering the riddle of the intentionality to the nonexistent). In the end, we will have a glance at the degree of the correspondence between knowledge and its object in this resolution and then we show that this resolution can be provable even outside Ibn Sina's philosophical system without necessarily accepting such issues as the four causes and the potentiality.

The possible worlds of Lewis and the theory of parallel worlds of physics have similarities. Both of these theories point to the possibility of more worlds than the world in which we live. Michio Kako, one of the most prominent physicists of the last half-century, relies on string theory to believe in the existence of parallel worlds. According to inflationary theory, parts of the developing world are distinct from other parts of the world, and this can lead to the emergence of new worlds. Lewis believes that all possible worlds are real. In the theory of parallel worlds, the people of these worlds, in his view, have no connection with each other and cannot influence each other. In Lewis's theory of possible worlds, the worlds are separate and no events in these worlds affect other worlds. In Lewis's theory, these worlds do not differ from each other in any way, but in the things that exist in them. In parallel worlds, based on the theory of turbulent inflation, the laws of the world may be different. In this article, we try to match the two by explaining both theories.

“What is understanding” is an important question in Later Wittgenstein's works. To examine what understanding is and his positive discussion of understanding, Wittgenstein first shows what understanding is not. According to him, in common sense, understanding is a special mental state that is the source of correct use. But he believes that understanding is not a matter of the mind. He means that understanding is not a mental experience, not a mental state, not a mental process, not a brain disposition. In this article, I examine Wittgenstein's view of why understanding is none of the three mental things (mental experience, mental state, mental process) mentioned above. Also, I will evaluate Wittgenstein's view and show that it is possible to challenge the claim that understanding is not a mental experience, not a mental state, not a mental process. In other words, I will show that Wittgenstein has failed to show that understanding is not a matter of the mind.

John Rawls's theory of justice is one of the most famous views in the political philosophy of the twentieth century. Contemporary German philosopher Yurgen Habermas believes that Rawls cannot justify this theory. Because the justification for this theory is based on some special premises that can not be compatible with other Rawls's essential views. This article examines Habermas's critique by carefully reading Rawls' theory of justice. It seems that Habermas's critique can be answered in two ways: The first answer seeks justification in what Rawls calls the "public reason" of a society. This answer is more in line with Rawls' appearance, but Habermas considers this interpretation of Rawls's theory to be contextualist and does not accept it. The second answer tries to focus on the concept of "general facts" in Rawls's theory, and provide a basis for the universal and non-contextual justification of Rawls's theory; the basis that Habermas claimed Rawls lacked.

During the 80s, Hilary Putnam developed a metaphysical viewpoint called 'internal realism'. Its slogan said, "the mind and the world together make up the mind and the world." According to Putnam, internal realism has two elements: 1) conceptual relativity and 2) seeing truth as idealized rational assertability. Here it will be argued that there is an internal incompatibility in the second element; i.e. truth as idealized rational assertability. To explain this incompatibility, firstly it will be shown that the idealization of rational assertability is duo to Putnam's emphasis on realistic intuitions of truth. Secondly, it will be shown that Putnam prefers to use 'sufficiently good conditions' instead of 'ideal conditions' to make a distinction between his idea and pierce's. Finally, it will be argued that some implication of 'sufficiently good conditions' is incompatible with those realistic intuitions of truth. Hence, one can conclude that there is an incompatibility in Putnam's attitude toward truth.

Huduth Cosmological argument is one of the proofs of Divine existence, which mostly applied by theologians. Believing in the createdness of the universe, theologians support the argument, while philosophers reject it because they think that the universe is eternal. A prominent philosopher in the west tradition is William Craig, which put forward philosophical and natural arguments, some of them are new. On the other hand, the argument has well known opponents such as Wallace Mathson, Josh Dever, Quentin Persifor Smith and Russel which some philosophers followed them, rejecting Huduth argument through the sequence of causes, positivism, and the eternality of the universe. Examining the most important critiques on the minor premise of the Huduth argument by Western philosophers, this study, by critical analytical method, has shown that their arguments are not sufficient to prove their claim. Although it seems that Craig's arguments for the existence of the universe are not certain and he has used indefinite hypotheses, but considering his set of reasons and also using various arguments such as the arguments of Islamic thinkers can accumulatively justify the theory of createdness against rival theories.

In this paper, we aim to investigate the aesthetic dimensions of Marx’s theory through the lens of Ranciére’s conception of “the sensible”. To this aim, we begin with the generic idea of the production and the alienated senses in Marx’s early writings to see how his idea is linked with the idea of “distribution of the sensible”. Then, in the light of the idea of “re-distribution of the sensible”, try to explain the political and emancipatory potential of the body in Marx’s mature critique of political economy in Capital and the Grundrisse. The paper shows how reading Marx’s theory of the senses through Ranciére’s can help in unveiling the aesthetic nature of the “mode of production”, specifically, in understanding “the mode of production” as a relation between the economic forces and the senses which, in turn, can turn into other forces. In this paper, the word “aesthetic” is used in the specific sense of sensuous perception.

The current paper is on applied philosophy and is the outcome of an interdisciplinary philosophy and management research project. The paper advocates the presupposition that philosophy may help managers of organizations improve the efficiency and profitability of the collections under their control by providing services to them. The paper's claims are examined on three levels: renowned philosophers' ideas, various philosophical skills, and philosophical character and spirit. The traits of leaders from Aristotle's perspective are explored at the first level. The effects of critical thinking and rhetoric on managers are examined on the second level. Several successful managers-philosophers are introduced on the third level. In the end, the findings of this study demonstrate the necessity of interdisciplinary studies and applying philosophy, as well as the identification of organizational problems that philosophy may help to solve. The research's primary data is gathered by the library method, and the research method is rational data analysis.