فصلنامه اندیشه دینی
پیاپی 48 (پاییز 1392)

In general we can distinguish two approaches in philosophy of religion: realistic and non-realistic. Don Cupitt, the British Theologian, believes that the era Platonic realism has been passed and religious faith should be modernized. He believes that no fixed and objective theological reality does exist by which we can test our theories. This paper mainly seeks to examine and criticize the non-realistic theological opinions of Cupitt. So, firstly we will review the historical background of non-realistic approach to religion. Then we will discuss and criticize briefly the foundations and the consequences of non-realistic view of religion. The final section is devoted to conclusions.

The present article intends to show a reasonable and documentary analysis of two important logical classifications: classification of quantified proposition into factual and external and classification of positive predicative proposition into factual, external and mental. The overlap of these two classifications which was happened because of the participation of the term, created many problems and ambiguities in understanding of the predecessors’ knowledge of sciences. The present article is an attempt to study these two classifications with a logical and epistemological approach. Our attitude in this article is a historical one. We first, analyze the bipartite classification then explain two reports of the triadic classification. In the shade of logical analysis and historical explanation the weaknesses and strengths of these classifications would become clear. Also we survey the opposing viewpoint in this problem.

Perfectionism, as an ethical theory, has a considerable capacity for providing an explanation of human moral good and happiness. According to a common reading, the core of this theory consists in human essence and man’s essential properties. Its main claim is that one is able to achieve his/her ideal perfection through training and actualizing his/her essential talents. In this view, human nature is intrinsically valuable and thus the development of one’s essential abilities ends in one’s real happiness. In this paper, after a review of various readings of perfectionism and their main claims, we make a critical survey of its elements and arguments. In the next stage the most important objections against perfectionism will be discussed including the refutation of essentialism. The final conclusion will be that perfectionism is much powerful to face the contemporary ethical problems.

In many verses of the Bible including the Old and the New Testaments, the unity of God and his being far from corporeality have been emphasized. On the other hand, in the New Testament, incarnation in the form of Jesu's body has been remarked. Using the New Testament, Christians became faithful in incarnation in the form of Jesus` body. Therefore, if someone does not accept the idea of distortion regarding the Bible and wants to accept biblical verses in the current form and present a reliable explanation, he or she has to appeal to an allegorical interpretation without involving in protesting the divine unity and negative attributes. The history of biblical interpretation shows that many Christian commentators considered incarnation as an allegorical issue and even some consider it as a myth. The holy Quran considers God free from matter and corporeality and rejects incarnation especially in the form of Jesu's body. Using Qur’anic and hadith teachings and intellectual reasoning, Muslim theologians also reject incarnation. Moreover, they mentioned that the incarnation hypothesis had been based on some impossible issues.-

Ibn Arabi, known as "al-Shayk al- Akbar" (the Greatest Master), is an outstanding figure in Islamic mysticism who has especial views on the Quran interpretation and hermeneutics. His views on interpretation (tafsir) and esoteric commentary (tavil) of the Quran is based on fundamentals and a methodology which are characteristic of his sufi thought. In this paper we aim to distinguish his rules on both tafsir and tavil of the Quran. In this relation we give a perspective of his hermeneutic theory.

Commentators of Kant's works have presented two totally different commentaries of "thing in itself". In the first commentary," thing in itself" has been considered as positive, being and the cause of phenomena. "Thing in itself ", in the second commentary, has been considered as negative and in this view just the possible beings, are considered as phenomena.This paper based on the expressions of Kant and his commentaries', shows that these two commentaries are contradictory and just for this reason we must accept one of them. It, then, demonstrates that these two commentaries face some unsolvable problems. After that, based on logical principles, we show that the solutions reconcile these two commentaries are deficient. Consequently, we show that Kant's theory of knowledge contains a contradiction which is indicative of its incoherence and incorrectness.

One of the issues which have always been controversial in the history of philosophy is the essential movement in nature or in a more general term nature’s change and becoming. In the history of philosophy, philosophers have been always undecided between the idea of change and the idea of stability. Some have entirely denied the reality of movement and considered the obvious changes and revolutions as the unreal constructions generated by mind. Some others, however, have talked about movement and change as an undeniable truth and set it as the foundation of their philosophical system. Heraclitus is the first Greek philosopher who has denied immovability and spoken about the permanent change and movement of natural objects. Among the Muslim philosophers it is Mulla Sadra that more than all others has discussed the substantial movement of objects and considered it as one of the most important principles of his transcendental theosophy. Heraclitus elucidates change and becoming in nature based on four important principles of his philosophy namely logos, change, opposition and unity within multiplicity. He views change as the fundamental, general and influential principle in nature. Mulla Sadra also basing on important principles of his philosophy such as priority of being and gradation of being has deemed movement as an analytical accident of being, and proved that the motional aspect of objects could not be separated from their ontological aspect. This article, after analyzing Heraclitus’ thoughts and comparing them with those of Mulla Sadra, concludes that despite the obvious differences which exist between the worldviews of these two philosophers, it is possible to give an interpretation which reveals similarity of their ideas about the substantial movement in nature.