نشریه شناخت
سال سوم شماره 2 (پیاپی 63، پاییز و زمستان 1389)

Logical Positivism and Analytic Philosophy have opposed metaphysics for decades, but now some contemporary analytic philosophers have turned their attention to metaphysics, regarding it not only possible but indispensable. So now a rich tradition of analytic philosophy exists. Edward Jonathan Lowe, in an extensive academic project and a book reminiscent in its confrontation with metaphysics of Kant’s critical philosophy, has tried to show the possibility of metaphysics and to present his own non-Kantian and realist metaphysics. He argues that, in a clear distinction between metaphysics and empirical sciences, the task of metaphysics is not to say what there is, but to state what can exist. According to him, the subject matter of metaphysics is “possibilities”, while empirical sciences have “actualities” as their subject matter. He defends metaphysics as an intellectual activity, with a central role for philosophizing and a priority for metaphysics against empirical sciences, so that metaphysics and the metaphysical possibility of specific subject matters of sciences are always prior to all scientific theorizing. The findings of metaphysics are the foundations of the empirical sciences, expressive of the possibilities of existence, and help to specify the categories of existence and the relations between these categories. In his project, Lowe has tried to deduce the “possibility of metaphysics” from “metaphysical possibility”, to present his own metaphysical system as an indispensable autonomous discipline, and, accordingly, to solve some problems of philosophy.

Tragedy and Ta׳zieh are religious and ceremonial plays, each with their own specific properties and facilities. Features of Ta׳zieh such as narration, extemporization, suspense and postponement on one hand and features of tragedy such as imitation, personification and the threefold unity of action, time and place on the other hand make each of them special plays. Nevertheless, in the presence of disaster and tragic event, both plays are compatible. Now the question arises, what features and components of Ta׳zieh and tragedy create a tragic affair? Moreover, can one think about Ta׳zieh as a kind of tragedy, according to their differences and similarities? In this paper, we try to demonstrate that the Ta׳zieh is not tragedy, but it is a kind of epic. For this purpose, we use a descriptive-comparative method as well as a philosophical procedure on the basis of Aristotle’s viewpoint.

Bernardus is a twelfth century thinker whose most important work is “Cosmographia” in which he uses Greek and Roman mythology, Neo-Platonism and Christian dogma in order to elaborate a theory of the cosmos and mankind. In this work he is credited with having given a well-thought mixture of mythology, philosophy and Christian teachings. A cursory look at the work shows that the religious language used by Bernardus is not one of the regular languages such as affirmative, apophatic, negative, cataphatic, or superlative theology, but rather a mystic-allegorical language. In other words, Bernardus, by fusing different teachings into a coherent system and presenting it with a mystic-allegorical language, manages to harness a heretical form to attest Christian teachings.

Much has been said about mage, mimesis and imagination. Old and new Arab and non Arab philologists and philosophers defined it in different forms and used it in different places. Poets especially have been inspired by it, because they have been inspired by the goddess of art. Images stored in the memory feed the imagination, so Plato believed poetics is one kind of Divine Charisma and Aristotle used words like representation and mimesis that are innately and instinctively in the human body in order to explain poetry. But who tells the truth, Plato or Aristotle? What is the viewpoint the Muslims about image? Brief research about image mimesis and imagination, and the role of image in the structure of the poetry is useful. So this article examines if Muslims have been influenced by Aristotle’s views and Greek thoughts or not and analyzes and criticizes the viewpoint of Hazim Al-Qartajini about mimesis and imagination.

Introducing a definition of political action and its political subject for emancipator politics is the concern of the most political thinkers. In this respect, the thinkers of the Left have grappled with it even more than others. This essay reflects on some of the major figures of the new left, in particular Alain Badiou and Jacques Ranciere, who have been influenced in different degrees by Jacques Lacan. It traces their attempts to formulate a different and allegedly universal definition of political action and its subject in order to find out whether they have been successful in mapping a new and "emancipator" definition or they have simply reproduced the old implications and traditional prescriptions in an apparently new guise.

According to Mulla Sadra’s vision, man is an existence that has two motions: compulsive and voluntary ontological motion. Hence, based on his philosophy, man’s univocal specific unity is nullified and man’s specific plurality, gradational or contrast difference is presented with Ontological conversion. Furthermore, according to Mulla Sadra, man has a historical evolution in which human beings appear in the current of history. According to him, begin from Sense and ends with Imagination, Intellect and Slavery (Abdiyat). In other words, the beginning of historical man is the age of Adam while its end is the age of the last prophet. In this article, historical evolution is surveyed following explicit sayings of Mulla Sadra and according to his mystical approaches.

This article considers the similarities and the differences between Levinas's and Kant's ethics. The article has two sections. In the first, the common features of moral thinking of Levinas and Kant such as "primacy of practical reason" and "respect to human status" are considered and it is shown that of Levinas's and kant's philosophies share a moral spirit in their philosophical systems. In the second, we referred to different features such as Kant's autonomy in contrast with Levinas's heteronomy. Moreover, sensibility in Levinas's ethics has been replaced by Kantian reason. In addition, the nature of ethical subject of Kant is different that of ethical subject of Levinas. The Kantian subject is free and rational and Levinasian subject, at first sight, is the subject who is responsible for other and his face. Therefore, it can be said that Levinas and Kant together have a moral mission.