فصلنامه فلسفه دین
سال هفتم شماره 7 (پیاپی 12، پاییز 1389)

In the “Critique of Pure Reason (Kritik der reinen Vernunft)” Kant apply the ‘judgment’ as an entry to his philosophical system and according to which he offers Quadra division of propositions and with analyzing of this propositions he try to reach his implications and results. So basic philosophical categories like possibility of metaphysics, Causality, Universality, Necessity, explanation of Natural Science and so on, bases on this division of proposition. But if we prove that he was wrong in his initial steps and there are other modes for explanation of these categories (e.g. Universality, Necessity and etc), we could cancel the bases of many of his conceptions. In this article we chose another mode and show that his idea is controvertible. We clarify that all the propositions are a- Posteriori.

Since both science and religion, two different aspects of human understanding, make comment on truth, inevitably we should deal with their relationship. Each of the following approaches: Differentiation, Conflict of confluence, confirm and Completion pay special attention on one of the main concerns of science and religion, i.e. relationship between them and its modes. At the same time each of which contained foibles and initial problems. The Methodology of Scientific Research Programs (MSRP) of Lakatos is an appropriate model for theoretical explanation of the way of relationship between science and religion. Accordingly, each of the theories of experimental science and religious theology are considered as a research program. Every research program contains a hard central core and a protective belt.

This paper is an effort to illustrate the position of Socrates in Kierkegaard’s religious and existential approach. If we have a brief look on Kierkegaard’s writings, we will realize that he was seriously affected by Socrates and primarily was inspired by him. Kierkegaard compares Socrates with Abraham, "knight of faith" and tries to places the non-Christian and pagan Socrates in the domain of his Christian thought background. He also calls Socrates as a tragic hero and tries to play his role in 19th century. This paper is going to through investigating of Kierkegaard’s writings verify the above-mentioned hypothesis.

Since Welfare, as a philosophical issue, has considered as an indication of man’s highest intellectual status and dignity, it always attracted the philosopher’s attention and they continuously asked weather: -Did all philosophers agree about the same meaning of welfare? -Did they agree about its determination and dimensions? -Can welfare from the philosophical meaning contain religious or ethical concepts? This intellectual status although from ordinary definition and conceptual aspect is partially accepted, but its external determination was always controversial and caused diverse approaches between philosophers among them the following are notable: unity with luminous forms, connection with Active intellect, representation of existing world within theologian soul, and taking welfare as personal experience of mystic. All these approaches agree that welfare is the only product of philosophical knowledge and purity of soul from non-rational pleasures.

Since Ethics is one of the subdivisions of practical wisdom, Islamic philosopher’s view point is very important in explanation of theoretical and practical reason. This paper is going to analyze the distinction between practical and theoretical reason from Haeri’s point of view. In order to finding the roots of his issue, at the beginning we will propose the idea of philosophers like Farabi, Ibn Sina, Qotb- al- din Razi, Mulla Sadra and Sabzevari; then we will have a review on Haeri’s view and his interpretation of Ibn Sina’s one. With finding and highlighting of contradictions and differences in Ib Sina’s view point, He tries to resolve the antinomies undermining in his ideas about distinction between practical and theoretical reason. He also stands against the view of some thinkers, such as Qotb- al-Din Razi, and some Asuliyyin like Mozaffar, and challenges their ideas.

Human soul is an immobile variable (mojarrad) that at the same time posses the feature of movement (or flux) in its essence. The commonest proof for denying motion in incorporeal beings is the “argument of potentiality and actuality”, that as we all know is an invalid argument. Invalidity of this argument is for impossibility of containing simultaneously both deficiency (potentiality) and sufficiency (actuality) in one simple (naive) being. But if two different being contain these aspects, then there will be no contradiction. If we deny this argument, then it will be possible for one simple being (like human soul) that posses simultaneously potentiality and actuality, especially if we consider that these two features are secondary intelligible of philosophy.

The topic of citizenship is an issue that many scholars from different point of views have paid attention to this concept. We can see and recognize some dimensions of citizenship in the works of Greek and Islamic philosophers. In this article, we examine the most important dimension of citizenship i.e. behavior. Under the light of this research, as we can see in Islamic religious texts, there are some characteristics for Muslim citizens that if they try to maintain these characteristics, they will have a healthy life and a beautiful world.