نشریه فلسفه غرب
پیاپی 4 (زمستان 1401)

The fundamental disagreement between realism and anti-realism is about the "independence" or "dependence" of the world on the human mind. The different modes of dependence of one object on another object are; Causal dependence: If a being is the cause of another being, the second being is causally dependent on the first being. Ontological dependence: If an entity is dependent on another entity both in existence and continuity of existence, this relationship is ontological dependence. Structural dependence: This means that reality does not have a certain structure, but the structure of the human perceptual system gives a certain structure to the world. Dependence in individuation and classification: Classification and demarcation of objects depends on the conceptual schemes of the human mind. According to metaphysical realism, not only the existence of natural objects is independent of humans, but also human artifacts are ontologically independent. Anti-realist theories are diverse and each of them claim a special meaning of the dependence of the world on the mind. Idealist theories consider the world and all the objects in it to be nothing but mental ideas. Relativistic theories accept the causal and ontological independence of the world from the human mind, but they claim that the structure of the world is dependent on the human mind. The so-called constructivism theories rely more on dependence in the individuation and differentiation of objects, that is, they consider the classification of objects and the differentiation of objects from each other to be dependent on the human mind.

Free will is one of the important concepts of Bergson's philosophy, which he has artistically associated with the concept of real time (Duration), which is considered a new concept. In order to reach this new understanding, Bergson considers all the arguments of the determinists and voluntaryism to be a kind of geometric symbolization caused by the confusion of time and space and negates them. From his point of view, the determinists propose two types of physical determinism and psychological determinism through the law of conservation of energy and psychological experience. the supporters of the rational proof of free will by using the power of imagination consider the action after it is done, which is the image of the action in It is the space, not the action itself, because the action itself is during execution. From Bergson's point of view, free will is a concrete relationship between the ego and the action it performs, this relationship is indefinable and we understand it directly (intuitively).This article has discussed and investigated freedom in Bergson's thinking with a descriptive analytical method, and the result will be a deep understanding of this issue.

Religion is one of the most important human phenomena that has had a special place in the theoretical apparatus of thinkers and thinkers in the field of human sciences in every historical period. It was the modern era and the concepts created during this period, in this research, an attempt has been made to examine a category such as religion from the perspective of postmodern thinkers. Accordingly, in the present research, a phenomenon such as religion has been examined from the perspective of postmodern thinkers such as Deleuze, Derrida, Lyotard, Baudrillard, and the type of view of each of these thinkers has been examined based on their theoretical apparatus. Am. The results of this article showed that religion in the postmodern era also faces many contradictions that these contradictions show the incompatibility of the epistemic foundations of religion and postmodernity. Based on the results of this research and the perspective of postmodern thinkers, it can be claimed that Religion and postmodernity are not compatible with each other.

Today, religious experience with its structure, scope and scope is one of the basic topics of the psychology of religion and contemporary philosophy of religion. Thus, the formation of the view of religious experience and the scope of its discussions in the West mainly came about following the challenges of philosophers such as Descartes to Hume and Kant who questioned the theological arguments of Madrasi and expanded with Schleier Macher's thoughts., its function in human life and the essence of religion or its truth or falsity have drawn various opinions in these time periods. Among them, phenomenologists and philosophers of religion have drawn dimensions and characteristics for religion, one of which is the experimental dimension of religion. In the thought of constructivists such as Proudfoot and Katz, who emphasize the mystical dimension of religious experience in explaining it, they believe that the nature of religious experience is influenced by the network of subjective beliefs and concepts of the subject and that experiences are devoid of beliefs and concepts (unlike the approach of essentialists). Does not exist. In the present research, our attempt is to analyze the two mentioned approaches with regard to their structures and compare the differences or commonalities of these two perspectives.

We expect that people receive new information about the world through language sounds we make. Language sounds and letters do not carry information about the world, and it is the listener who understands a sentence and properly reacts to it based on their background knowledge of the world. This simple language behavior, i.e., understanding words and phrases instantly based on our background knowledge of the world has a very complex explanation. In the present paper, I aimed to describe a dilemma in explaining this complex issue. On the one hand, historical-cultural information (auditory or non-auditory) should be considered to exist inside the mind rather than in something outside it; on the other hand, we must believe that historical-cultural information exists outside the mind, and that it is for this reason that language sounds and letters can carry new information. Here we suggest to better understand this dilemma to focus on the concept of brain-body instead of the concept of mind, or theories that are guided by common intuition about the mind. We will show that by focusing on the concept of brain-body, the dilemma becomes a trivial problem.

 In his Copernican revolution, Kant changed the centrality of cognition from the external world to the knowing subject. In this way, human mental structure provides the context of experience; And based on that, he acquires aesthetic and imaginary knowledge and finally reaches the understanding of the external world. Although Kant proposes this theory and goes as far as the schematism by imagination, it seems that his views are confused in explaining categories as pure concepts that are completely independent of experience, sense and time. According to Kant's doctrine, every concept and therefore categories must be referred to an intuition. But on the one hand, if categories are returned to sense and experience in any way, then they are not pure concepts of understanding; Although Kant does not accept it, he cannot explain his opinion successfully; On the other hand, if categories are pure and beyond experience and sense, then they must be referred to something; And Kant refers them to the "objective in general" intuition; But in this case, he is caught in the transcendental object; Especially, the characteristics that Kant enumerates for the "object in general" create the suspicion that the understanding perceives the categories with intellectual intuition from the "object in general" or in other words from "Being".