فصلنامه معرفت فلسفی
سال دهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 40، تابستان 1392)

In addition to the discussion about the criterion of truth, there have been different theories explaining and analyzing its reality in contemporary epistemology. Focusing on the preferred view concerning the correspondence theory of truth, the present article would try to explain it by first dealing with statement-truth and narrator-truth among other topics. It further discusses the sphere of truth as well as whether truth and falsity are peculiarly applicable to propositions, and non-applicable to intuitive knowledge, ideas and concepts. Stating the three foundations of truth in the correspondence theory of truth, the article concludes with explaining the quality of realization of correspondence in author’s view.

Among all contemporary epistemological issues the topics of the possibility of knowledge and its nature are two significant ones. Transcendental Philosophers and Cartesians both admit of the possibility of real knowledge. Defining real knowledge, they divide it into different categories. Other important issues in comparing the epistemology of these two groups concerning the possibility and nature of knowledge include: skepticism, division of knowledge into knowledge by presence and knowledge by representation, discussing conception and judgment and their varieties, using logic particularly syllogism and its relevant issues as a method for attaining knowledge.

It can be definitely said that Mulla Sadra’s study of the soul holds the highest position among its rivals in different schools of Islamic philosophy in terms of its organized system and rules. Topics of study of soul according to Mulla Sadra can be investigated from three perspectives: a) methodological issues, b) suggested principles, and c) applying the implications of these principles in formulating practical philosophy and psychological sciences. The coherent content of Mulla Sadra’s study of the soul and the principles presented by him, can be considered a rival theory for those based on materialism in this age. The principal goal of this article is to compare and explain the superiority and efficiency of Sadra’s study of the soul vis-à-vis many of the contemporary anthropologies from these three perspectives. The outcome of the first discussion is gaining access to a comprehensive and holistic view concerning the human being, and the possibility of a logical discussion about common human rights. The result of the second discussion is moving beyond such ideas as nihilism, individualism, and identity crisis. The conclusion of the third discussion is the possibility of a practical and applied system in the field of education based on such a study of the soul.

Explaining what is meant by the theory of mind-body identity, the present article studies certain arguments behind it. The first argument refers to Smart’s theory. Relying on William of Ockham’s view that if it is possible for a phenomenon to be explained physically, it should not be interpreted through metaphysical concepts, Smart claims that nowadays all mental states such as love, hate, and knowledge are physically explicable; therefore, we should not resort to the immaterial soul to justify them. Criticizing this theory, the authors indicate that in addition to rational invalidity of William of Ockham’s principle, human experimental knowledge has not been capable of presenting a convincing interpretation of mental states in spite of all scientific progress. The article further refers to Davidson’s argument for identity theory, mentioning its weak points. The article concludes that proponents of the theory of soul-body identity do not have authentic and valid arguments for it.

Among the theories concerning bodily resurrection, the theory of Mulla Sadra affirms both bodily and spiritual resurrection. Mulla Sadra seeks to prove this view through rational principles. These principles place Mulla Sadra vis-à-vis theologians, Peripatetics, and Illuminationists. Trying to indicate how Mulla Sadra stands against other theories through such principles as the principality of existence, incorporeity of imagination, the dependence of imaginative forms on human soul for its emanation, and the role of actions and moral traits in the formation of intermediary body, the article shows how he explains the objections by rival theories towards affirming his own theory.

Universal concepts can be viewed from two perspectives: ontological and epistemological. From an ontological perspective, the nature of universals are dealt with, while from an epistemological perspective, the way we become aware of universal concepts, as well as how they are formed in the mind are discussed. After studying ontological views regarding universals, the present article deals with the way of their formation. The article is to clarify that universal concepts are made while encountering (even a single encounter) particulars, and numerous encounters with several examples or instances are not necessary. However, after these concepts are formed, the more one encounters their instances, the more their accuracy and the better their representation of their instances.

Pluralism as seen by traditionalists can also be studied and criticized with a philosophical approach, since traditionalists employed certain philosophical foundations towards explaining their theory of pluralism. Some of these foundations are: the gradation of existence, believing in the world of universal beings and the world of ideas, distinction between the extrinsic and intrinsic realms of religion, the division of intellect into universally intuitive and particularly demonstrative, the division of reality into absolute reality and relative one, permissibility of plurally authentic (yet conflicting) interpretations of a single reality, generalizing truth from particular to universal, and certain views concerning human being and his role in the hierarchy of existence.The present article studies and criticizes the foundations on which traditionalists have laid their theory of pluralism. These are ontological, epistemological and anthropological foundations. Criticizing the above foundations, the article seeks to highlight their ambiguities and weak points.