فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال هجدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 71، پاییز 1401)

The Masnavi has been read as if Rumi believed either in determination or free will, or he hesitated between the two. Here we reveal a new interpretation that how he avoids both of these. His position is out of this game entirely. We have explained that he thinks of the disputation between two sides as an endless one made by God to cover up a great mystery. As far as we could, we tried to explore the entire Masnavi and interpret all relevant verses in a consistent context, rather than decontextualizing and treating some parts in isolation from the overall flow of the text. Our Assumption, unlike other commentators, is that his perspective deeply (not superficially) differs from that of the philosophers and theologians. We have quoted the commentators wherever necessary and then shown why and how they made mistakes in understanding his words and thought that he believed in determinism or free will.

The Epistemic Bubble and the Echo Chamber are two phenomena of the Post-Truth area that deny scientific knowledge. The Epistemic Bubble exposes the individual to unbalanced arguments by eliminating knowledge outside the bubble and strengthening trust in the knowledge within it. In contrast, the Echo Chamber does not eliminate the knowledge outside the chamber but makes it unreliable. This unreliability of knowledge outside the room is accompanied by an increase in trust in knowledge inside the Echo Chamber. Both of these phenomena are common in building trust in knowledge within their community and distrust of scientific knowledge. In this paper, using the analytical-descriptive method, a solution to get out of the Epistemic Bubble and the Echo Chamber is presented. In this path, first, the two phenomena of Epistemic Bubbles and Echo Chambers are examined. Then Hoyningen-Huene’s Systematicity theory will be introduced. Systematicity theory shows that in common subjects, scientific knowledge in nine dimensions is more systematic than everyday knowledge. According to this theory, systematicity means that scientific knowledge is not purely random or accidental, is not chaotic, not completely unplanned nor unordered, and is methodological. The results show that the comparative nature of this theory helps to distinguish between knowledge in the Epistemic Bubble or Echo Chamber and Science. This theory will help us find a way to check the reliability of the acquired knowledge and make it possible for the person to get out of the Epistemic bubble and the Echo Chamber.

According to Aristotle, there was a popular theory in ancient Greece according to which "unity" was considered an independent substance that has a causal role in relation to other substances. Aristotle tried to reject that theory by stating that “one” is a "predicate" and also referring to the corrupt result. This theory and Aristotle's critiques of it came to the attention of Ibn Sina, and he, unlike Aristotle, did not confine himself to simply considering the "one" as the “predicate”. In the Ketab al-Nijat, he tried, through three arguments, to prove the “one” is an indispensable accident and is the source of the derivation of "unity." Ibn Sina's arguments are distorted in many ways, but the most important drawback of his argument is the confusion of categorical and analytical propositions, and the acceptance of the predicate of the one and by accepting the predicate of the “one” and its non-separation from the subject, it is not possible to prove “unity” is an "accident", in contrast to the substance, and thus negate the causality of the one in relation to the substances.

Cornell realism belongs to the new wave movements in ethical naturalism debates. What distinguishes Cornell realism from other ethical naturalism is that the thesis adopts an anti-reductionist approach towards ethical facts. Our aim in this paper is to consider the thesis based on Richard Boyd’s views who is the most well-known defender of the thesis. We try to show that Boyd’s proposal on the semantics of ethical terms can defuse both Moore’s open-question argument and constructivist relativism arguments. Along with considering Boyd’s thesis, we will consider the required premises of his argument like the idea of the natural kind, extensional identities, co-referentiality, and partial denotation.

Grounding depicts the layered structure of the facts. If we let grounding facts be in the theory, what is their status in the hierarchy? Based on the Purity Principle, grounding facts could not be fundamental because they contain non-fundamental parts. They must inevitably be grounded in other facts. Non-fundamentality of grounding facts, with some other assumptions, produces a chain of grounding facts that could threaten the well-foundedness of grounding. The well-foundedness of Grounding is desirable because it guarantees foundationalism; a thesis that posits the existence of a fundamental layer of facts. In this essay, we will introduce common theories about grounding ground and also describe different approaches to make grounding well-founded. These theories contain a reductionist theory called Grounding Essentialism and two theories that believe grounding facts are grounded in something in the theory. These two accounts are called Straight Forward Account and Zero Grounding Account. Here we will show that Straight Forward Account and Zero Grounding Account are consistent with one approach to well-foundedness and therefore, they are foundationalist. On the other hand, we will show that Grounding Essentialism cannot accommodate well-foundedness in its various forms. We present a qualified version of Grounding Essentialism that could support well-foundedness. We will argue that even though this trial is somehow successful, some problems still stay on.

If the investigation of different methods of existence and surveying language capabilities were among the most important thought issues of Samuel Beckett, so he would certainly use these two in order to recognize man better and communicate with the world around him. Beckett, affected by Descartes’ Dualism, believes that the intrinsic separation of body and soul has resulted in the incapability of man’s language to communicate with the world around him. So, he tries to show that there is no way to resolve his inability of communicating rather than creating a new language to narrate himself by his separated body from soul. Beckett uses body, its parts and motions to do this. He believes that the more decrepit the body is, the more obvious its effort to be seen. In order to do this, he tries to use characters with different kinds of inabilities in their bodies. In Beckett’s view, body can remove the obstacles of communication by narrating its defects. Therefore, the characters in his writings never speak about their calamitous situation and they are used to their inabilities as a permanent companion that it seems there is no sign of self-suffering in their behavior and motions. Being with these sufferings to the end of their explorations makes them self-conscious and at the same time to go beyond their decrepit bodies. Critical-analytical method has been used in this article and the result shows that Samuel Beckett goes beyond Descartes' Dualism and tries to restore the place and value of body.

From the analysis of the concept of inertia, two meanings can be deduced. The first one, that is, the body's resistance to change of state is accepted by all, but the second, that is, the perseverance of body in the state of rest or uniformly straight-line motion (Newton's first law), depends on what our definition of motion and rest is. If we accept the Cartesian definition of them, that is, they mean status, the latter meaning is acceptable, but it is not consistent with the Aristotelian definition. Avicenna proposed the theory of "mail" (Inclination/ Tendency) several centuries ago; resistant mail includes the first meaning of inertia, and the motive mail, although similar to the second one, he could not accept it because he rejects the Cartesian definition of motion. Avicenna's opinion is similar to Leibniz's, and he believes that the existence of the motive mail is necessary for the continuation of the motion. The aim of this research, as an example, is to provide attention to the high capacity of the opinions of Islamic philosophers such as Avicenna in the development of physical concepts and theories.

From Kant’s view, freedom is the universal property of humans as the autonomy of will. He established morals on the ground of freedom through legislation of Practical Reason. In Kant’s philosophy, freedom is a ground, based on which humans have dignity as an individual and human beings. The concept of freedom is conjunct with moral law and practical reason and is not found in the scope of nature. The moral law being freedom in a sense elevates humans from the scope of nature and gives them value and dignity, which is based on freedom and autonomy. A moral human creates value for the world, and human is the end of creation. The Intermediator of human relationship as a moral being and the end of nature is the freedom concept. This article is written concentrating on Kant’s view of “The relationship between dignity and humans freedom”. Freedom is neither an objective matter nor the subject of cognition because the concept of freedom is related to the rational world and is realized in the behavior and disposition of humans. Everything has a price or dignity in the land of ends. Whatever has a price could be traded, but what is more valuable than any value and has no equivalent whatsoever is dignity. The humanity of humans is the only being that has “dignity” as long as it is capable of having morality.

Modern thought, focusing on spatiotemporal connections of human beings and emphasizing science, technology, and earthy bliss, has ignored the idea of ultimate and otherworldly bliss as a form of asceticism. It thus filled with Nihilism and Dysphoria. It was while human beings in the classic world emphasizing the hereafter bliss were ignoring the importance of life and happiness in this world. Nowhere, neither the results of modern thought nor the classic lifestyle cut off the earthy bliss is desirable. The issue is how to achieve an attitude beyond their problems and obstructions? This article has turned its attention to this issue through a descriptive-analytical method. It seems that on the basis of the Primacy of Existence (Isalat al-Wujud), any duality is artificial and unreal. Insisting on the unity of the modes and moments of reality, we can emphasize the unity of the soul and body, saying that happiness in this world and that world are in parallel. The result according to us is that the path of heaven passes through the earth, and the prosperity of the other world as the interior of this world can be possible only through the prosperity and protection of the present one.