فصلنامه حکمت و فلسفه
سال نوزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 73، بهار 1402)

"Cognitive Science of Religion" is the emerging branch of cognitive science, which uses the findings of cognitive science to study religious beliefs and behaviors. Most scholars in this area believe that religious beliefs and behaviors are the byproducts of the cognitive architecture of our minds. Based on this predominant approach, known as the "Standard Model", the human mind is not an integrated processing system, but has multiple proprietary tools for processing input information. These mental tools, in the process of evolution, have found biases that affect the input information and systematically guide them. For the Standard Model defenders, these mental tools and their cognitive bias play an essential role in shaping many of our beliefs, including religious beliefs. In this paper, from the perspective of the philosophy of science, we examine three main indicators for demonstrating the validity of this approach: the empirical evidence to defend it, its explanatory power and its theoretical structure, as well as its methodological presuppositions. In this paper, we show that the Standard Model is underdetermination in terms of empirical evidence, weak in terms of explanatory power, and challenged in terms of methodological presuppositions.

The end of Comparative Philosophy is the most important and last point of view regarding this approach. So far, Comparative Philosophy has faced various oppositions, confronting these criticisms, a question will be raised: Are these oppositions against the nature of Comparative Philosophy or due to the dissatisfaction or ineffectiveness from it? In the present research, by examining the contexts, the causes and reasons for opposition to Comparative Philosophy have been discussed. In this regard, the appearance of Comparative Philosophy, its progress until the new era, and reaching the opposition's point of view will be discussed with the descriptive-analytical method. In this regard, firstly, the views of the Comparative Philosophy opponents and believers of its end, their purpose, and their arguments will be examined. In the following, the origin of Comparative Philosophy and then the major approaches in the new era are presented. Then, by presenting the fourth approach (which provides an independent definition by reviewing the concept of comparative philosophy), an answer will be given to them. The results of the present research show that the opposition to Comparative Philosophy and the belief in its end is based on the lack of correct understanding of Comparative Philosophy and its precise definition and it's not that the nature of Comparative Philosophy faces impossibility and end

Ancient Greek culture, philosophy, and art are very important to Nietzsche. Despite his highly critical and radical view of the entire Western cultural tradition, he always praises ancient Greek culture as the noblest human culture. His attention to the ancient Greeks is largely a consequence of Nietzsche's central concern: the “crisis of nihilism”. Nietzsche seeks to eliminate nihilism through the creation of a Noble culture. His underlying idea of culture is Goethe's idea of “harmonious manifoldness” or “unity in diversity”. He emphasizes that in any era, a fundamental unifying factor can be the founder of a healthy culture; in his view, saints, philosophers, and artists are the main candidates for the foundation of culture. In this article, we try to show that in his first theoretical attempt to create a Noble culture, Nietzsche chooses an aesthetic perspective (thesis), but this perspective isn't satisfactory, so he changes his perspective and looks at culture from a philosophical perspective (antithesis). The opposition and at the same time, the coexistence of these two perspectives leads to a "synthesis": the harmonious alliance of philosophy and art to create a culture. The embodiment of this synthesis is the “philosopher-artist”; one who has “knowledge” and “creativity” at once; “future philosopher”; a creator of new values! In this paper, we try to show that this synthesis doesn't lead to a third thing, different from thesis and antithesis, in which contradiction and conflict have been settled; instead, this synthesis is exactly the same simultaneous opposition and harmony of these forces. This unity of contradictory forces is a recurring concept in Nietzsche's thought.

Modern media are undoubtedly the most important phenomenon of the current century. Since it has affected all aspects of human life, from science, religion, policy, economy and culture to most personal everyday relations; the “lifestyle” of the contemporary man, in a word. Such a wide range of influence has made thinkers to discuss and study the media. These studies has resulted in a new interdisciplinary field of science known as "Philosophy of Media" which explores the media from various aspects. In a approach to media nature, some believe in an independent essence which is individually devisable. Some other, on the other hand, refer to the media as a means and believe that the media lack the authority to direct human life, and it is the man who determines how to use media, instead. This paper aims to study Heidegger and Postman points of view about the media. Both thinkers are considered to be essentialists who have commented the media from technology aspect and emphasized on self-awareness to encounter any technology, including media, in order to get rid of contemporary crisis.

In the history of philosophy, the discussion of ontology and how existence is revealed to humans has been one of the most important and fundamental philosophical topics, but in the new period, it is forgotten and the main focus of philosophy turns from ontology to epistemology. The basic question of this article is what is Husserl’s concept of existence, who is the founder of phenomenology in the contemporary period which is the period of neglect of existence? Is it possible to find a trace of ontology and existence in the discussions of phenomenology, whose slogan is "towards the things themselves" and which deals with the constitution of the world in consciousness? This article achieves these findings with the analytical-descriptive method, that no direct discussion of existence and ontology can be found in Husserl's works. However, in his analyses, for example, from two natural and phenomenological attitudes, or in the discussions of intentional objects and the discussion of existence in a certain context-belief, as well as in the epoche, we can understand his implicit perception of existence. The result of the important discussion of epoche is the affirmation of pure Ego and absolute consciousness, and this consciousness is considered as absolute existence. For Husserl, existence acquires meaning through the channel of consciousness. Consciousness does not need anything to exist. Therefore, only consciousness can reveal the existence of the world to us. Finally, the world exists as far as it enters the realm of consciousnessworld to us. Finally, the world exists as far as it enters the realm of consciousness.

Jean-Paul Sartre and Martin Buber have considered the human being, his existential issues, and anxieties in their philosophical issues. Among these topics is the subject of the "other" and "meaning of life". Sartre's views appear in the position of an atheist thinker about the "other" and meaning in life in two approaches. First, his radical view of the "other" is so pessimistic, and he calls it "hell", and the relationship with the "other" is based on "conflict". At this point, life is absurd and meaningless. He takes a moderate approach in his later views, believing that he has to invent a meaning for life and that the "other" can play an essential role in this meaning. Buber is a divine existentialist and sees the "other" and "meaning of life" in a deep bond. In his mind, the pursuit of authentic communication and the discovery of the meaning of life can only be possible when there is "Thou". Of course, Thou has a hierarchy, and the highest "you" is "eternal", and in the shadow of his grace, the meaning of life is discovered.

In Deleuze: The Clamor of Being, Badiou presents his views on Deleuze's ontology, and by enumerating some features in Deleuze's view, he finally calls him a philosopher of the one who relies on the Stoic view of what overthrows Plato. The reader was unsuccessful and his philosophical project has not achieved anything in the end except the surrender of plurality to unity. For Badiou, who considers only the mission of the contemporary philosopher to break away from the concept of unity in any way, concepts such as the spiritual communion of existence and the eternal return will only reach the equality of existence and unity, and even the difference in Deleuze ontology will ultimately be a function of the "same" and a single leader. In this article, we will try to enumerate some of Badiou's critiques on the relationship between Deleuze and the Stoic view, as well as apply the concept of eternal return and his view of Deleuze as a philosopher of the one thing and finally, defend difference and repetition as multiplicity based versions and show that the fundamental root of Badiou's critiques can be seen in his incoherent conception of unity and the deliberate confusion of the concepts of the spiritual commonality of existence and unity.

The inappropriate use of "cause" in the translation of Aition and transferring the conceptual and metaphysical content of active cause to other causes, especially the ultimate cause, has caused misinterpretations and misunderstanding of this concept. If the relationship between cause and explanation is not taken into account, there will be confusion between the meaning of cause in the new philosophy and Aitia, which is caused by not taking into account the difference between "view to fact" and the mind, or the distinction between proof and evidence. In this article, the why and how to enumerate the Aristotelian causes and the ontological and epistemological strains of the relationship between cause and explanation are discussed from his point of view. The reason for Aristotle's fourfold classification of causes and the understanding of the causal relationship should be found based on the category of change and movement or the relationship between the creator and the artifact. The role of change and movement can be considered as the foundation of the natural analysis of causality based on the teachings of physics and metaphysics, in parallel with Aristotle's theory of causality in secondary analyzes based on the concepts of the middle ground of evidential analogy and general causal innateness. It is possible to consider the cause as a type of explanation or as a part of the explanation known as the causal explanation in such a way that it is both an explanation and an explanation of the cause.

This article tries to examine modern humanism and the position of the concept of the subject from Nietzsche's critical point of view, considering the importance and position of instinct compared to consciousness. Man as the subject and subject of knowledge has a privileged position in modern metaphysics, and basically, modernity has an inseparable link with the subject and consciousness. Nietzsche's criticism of the subjective concept of modern man and the revival of the elemental instinct in the drawing of the human face is considered a fundamental criticism of modernity. In this research, firstly, the relationship between instinct and consciousness is examined in the theoretical foundations, focusing on the thought of Rousseau and Schopenhauer, and then the relationship between instinct and moral values, as well as the desire for truth in Nietzsche's view, is investigated. Nietzsche believes that the reduction of man to consciousness (the knowing subject) requires ignoring other dimensions of human existence, such as physical, instinctive, emotional, and historical dimensions, and as a result, he considers the image of modern man as a subject to be an incomplete form of man, which, despite the cognitive and moral centrality in modern metaphysics, has ignored important aspects of human being and natural dimensions that can lead to his prosperity. This article finally deals with the place of body and instinct as natural dimensions of human existence and their priority over mind and subjective consciousness in Nietzsche's anthropology.