University of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11279FAJournal Article19700101In contemporary philosophy the main question is that knowledge is not a true belief but rather a true justified belief.
By distinguishing between understanding and knowledge, the author of this article is going to explain that for understanding a proposition one should understand the reason of truth of that proposition. He also applies Humean instrumental approach toward knowledge, in which reason is a servant of emotions, to clarify Aristotle and Plato’s point of view in this respect. He finally distinguishes between practical and theoretical reason and following Rescher maintains that cognitive, evaluative and practical rationality relies upon one another. At the end he concludes that we cannot find a unified notion about rationality. So we can understand that human being is more than a single integrated intellect. This is the subject that should be noted in modern epistemology.In contemporary philosophy the main question is that knowledge is not a true belief but rather a true justified belief.
By distinguishing between understanding and knowledge, the author of this article is going to explain that for understanding a proposition one should understand the reason of truth of that proposition. He also applies Humean instrumental approach toward knowledge, in which reason is a servant of emotions, to clarify Aristotle and Plato’s point of view in this respect. He finally distinguishes between practical and theoretical reason and following Rescher maintains that cognitive, evaluative and practical rationality relies upon one another. At the end he concludes that we cannot find a unified notion about rationality. So we can understand that human being is more than a single integrated intellect. This is the subject that should be noted in modern epistemology.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11279_02a8479be288375163812a2f1304adc2.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11280FAJournal Article19700101This paper aims to review the definition by hadd and consequent difficulties. The author maintains that defining by h as it’s discussed in philosophy and logic, does not solve any problem. Among Muslim philosophers, Sohrevardi believes that defining by h i.e. defining by genus and defferentia (jins wa fasl) is impossible. Thus he considers the Perpatetic (massha) method to be wrong. He proposes that in order to have knowledge of something one should use a set of particular concomitants of that.This paper aims to review the definition by hadd and consequent difficulties. The author maintains that defining by h as it’s discussed in philosophy and logic, does not solve any problem. Among Muslim philosophers, Sohrevardi believes that defining by h i.e. defining by genus and defferentia (jins wa fasl) is impossible. Thus he considers the Perpatetic (massha) method to be wrong. He proposes that in order to have knowledge of something one should use a set of particular concomitants of that.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11280_2ee189c98a10d6232f72818c249cf297.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11281FAJournal Article19700101The paradox of the absolute unknown has two distinctive features. The early feature had its roots in Greek thought and its argumented versions are discussed among Muslims philosophers. According to this form of paradox, obtaining new cognition from a prior knowledge is impossible. To deny the aquired concepts Fakhr Razi uses this form of paradox. The second form which was basically introduced by Muslim scholars, relates the problem of assent to impossibility. Qutb-al-din Razi in Sharh almatalë reviews the second form of the paradox in two versions. His solution is essentially taken from Khonji and Armawi which is based on the distinction of real and external propositions. The second and the third solutions are basically taken from Samarqandi and Tusi. This study aims to show the extent of influence of the early Muslim philosophers on Qutb-al-din Razi and the evolution of the paradox of the absolute unknown in the recent centuries.The paradox of the absolute unknown has two distinctive features. The early feature had its roots in Greek thought and its argumented versions are discussed among Muslims philosophers. According to this form of paradox, obtaining new cognition from a prior knowledge is impossible. To deny the aquired concepts Fakhr Razi uses this form of paradox. The second form which was basically introduced by Muslim scholars, relates the problem of assent to impossibility. Qutb-al-din Razi in Sharh almatalë reviews the second form of the paradox in two versions. His solution is essentially taken from Khonji and Armawi which is based on the distinction of real and external propositions. The second and the third solutions are basically taken from Samarqandi and Tusi. This study aims to show the extent of influence of the early Muslim philosophers on Qutb-al-din Razi and the evolution of the paradox of the absolute unknown in the recent centuries.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11281_5575d7cebcf18a5fd92f363eb4469cc6.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11282FAJournal Article19700101The article discusses the question of meaning and its constituents placing a special emphasis on the ayatollah Shahid Motahhari’s works and viewpoints. According to this research the essential core of meaning originates from the intention and the knowledge of a wise narrator. The structure of language that accomodates the words and the texts in its turn also has certain special potentials and and implications for the enrichment of the meaning. In the meantime, the readers role, from a linguistic perspective - regardless of the psychological dimension - is to discover and reproduce the meaning.The article discusses the question of meaning and its constituents placing a special emphasis on the ayatollah Shahid Motahhari’s works and viewpoints. According to this research the essential core of meaning originates from the intention and the knowledge of a wise narrator. The structure of language that accomodates the words and the texts in its turn also has certain special potentials and and implications for the enrichment of the meaning. In the meantime, the readers role, from a linguistic perspective - regardless of the psychological dimension - is to discover and reproduce the meaning.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11282_8998d5a46b5f99647109f436f442bf5c.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11283FAJournal Article19700101This article attempts to show that religious experience is a source of knowledge of existence of God. To this end, first, several versions of reasoning of religious experience are stated. Then, objection of John Hospers, a critique of religious experience is reviewed. According to Hospers verification of argument from religious experience leads to paradoxical beliefs to which means nothing but religious pluralism. The author raises two considerations: First, religious experience like sensory experience, is a source of knowledge, secondly, opposing views on religious experience are justified as they are justified in the case of sensory experience.
The author concludes that most of opposing views on religious experience could be attributed to the variety of God’s names. The reliability of the remaining views may be verified by the standards of reason and the holy book.This article attempts to show that religious experience is a source of knowledge of existence of God. To this end, first, several versions of reasoning of religious experience are stated. Then, objection of John Hospers, a critique of religious experience is reviewed. According to Hospers verification of argument from religious experience leads to paradoxical beliefs to which means nothing but religious pluralism. The author raises two considerations: First, religious experience like sensory experience, is a source of knowledge, secondly, opposing views on religious experience are justified as they are justified in the case of sensory experience.
The author concludes that most of opposing views on religious experience could be attributed to the variety of God’s names. The reliability of the remaining views may be verified by the standards of reason and the holy book.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11283_e04b57d86553b2e21d7451b13387d7bf.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11284FAJournal Article19700101Kant’s view on causality - the principle of causality and its proofs- are based on debates addressed by Hume who believed that the notion of cause is fictitious and illusory. Criticizing Hume’s view of causality, Kant attempts to develope a coherent and comprehensive perspective that explains how theory of causality was born and applied in human cognition. Understanding kant’s theory of causality depends on understanding the other elements of his philosophy.
According to most of his commentators and interpreters, to grasp the causality theory in Kantian philosophical system one has to understand the transcedental dialectic in Kant’s critique of pure reason - which is not an easy task to do. In this article we attempt to give a simple account of transcedental deduction to the extent it concerns to the causality debate. It should be noted that Kant’s thoughts on causality have evolved through different phases. Anyway, this article deals only with the era after the critique of pure reason.Kant’s view on causality - the principle of causality and its proofs- are based on debates addressed by Hume who believed that the notion of cause is fictitious and illusory. Criticizing Hume’s view of causality, Kant attempts to develope a coherent and comprehensive perspective that explains how theory of causality was born and applied in human cognition. Understanding kant’s theory of causality depends on understanding the other elements of his philosophy.
According to most of his commentators and interpreters, to grasp the causality theory in Kantian philosophical system one has to understand the transcedental dialectic in Kant’s critique of pure reason - which is not an easy task to do. In this article we attempt to give a simple account of transcedental deduction to the extent it concerns to the causality debate. It should be noted that Kant’s thoughts on causality have evolved through different phases. Anyway, this article deals only with the era after the critique of pure reason.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11284_eff6c5f5da7ac924ca3f4b8050e39399.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11285FAJournal Article19700101The theory of atomism refers to the existences of vacuum and basic particles in physical bodies. The foundation stone of this theory was laid by the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Leucippus and Democritus who developed the theory in a praiseworthy manner. They furthermore, identified the substantial qualities of bodies with insubstantial qualities and explained their relationship.
Aristotle, the renowned philosopher of the ancient Greece was among opponents of this theory. In denying the existence of basic particles, that he apparently rejects the existence of partless magnitudes. In challenging the theory of vacuum, he applies some reasons that can be considered as opposing to some of his own philosophical paradigm. The author of this essay is not of the same view and rejects Aristotle’s criticism of the motion of atoms.The theory of atomism refers to the existences of vacuum and basic particles in physical bodies. The foundation stone of this theory was laid by the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Leucippus and Democritus who developed the theory in a praiseworthy manner. They furthermore, identified the substantial qualities of bodies with insubstantial qualities and explained their relationship.
Aristotle, the renowned philosopher of the ancient Greece was among opponents of this theory. In denying the existence of basic particles, that he apparently rejects the existence of partless magnitudes. In challenging the theory of vacuum, he applies some reasons that can be considered as opposing to some of his own philosophical paradigm. The author of this essay is not of the same view and rejects Aristotle’s criticism of the motion of atoms.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11285_7cde4b3663fa1c728dcd26f03309740f.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11286FAJournal Article19700101One of the sources and references in Quranic exegesis is reason.The interpreters from both Islamic religious sects have not absolutely denied the application of reason in interpreting the holy Qur’an.
They have given three definitions of reasons. The scholars of both religious sects accept that reason acts as a means for understanding the self-evident concepts, a source for constituting logical analogy and a source for inference from Quranic verses using the intertextual and nonintertextual data. However, despite the difference in source of and results they draw only Shiites and Mutazilites recognize reason as an independent source in apperception of virtues and vices of any deeds and in legislation of Ashariah rules (ahkam) . In a sharp contrast to some scholars’ viewpoint, Shiites are not influenced by Mutazilites; rather it has influenced the Mutazilites theology and exegesis.One of the sources and references in Quranic exegesis is reason.The interpreters from both Islamic religious sects have not absolutely denied the application of reason in interpreting the holy Qur’an.
They have given three definitions of reasons. The scholars of both religious sects accept that reason acts as a means for understanding the self-evident concepts, a source for constituting logical analogy and a source for inference from Quranic verses using the intertextual and nonintertextual data. However, despite the difference in source of and results they draw only Shiites and Mutazilites recognize reason as an independent source in apperception of virtues and vices of any deeds and in legislation of Ashariah rules (ahkam) . In a sharp contrast to some scholars’ viewpoint, Shiites are not influenced by Mutazilites; rather it has influenced the Mutazilites theology and exegesis.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11286_792cafebe4e5efbd2ad0d6c181dcbef0.pdfUniversity of Tehran PressPhilosophy of Religion2008-70631220050522--11287FAJournal Article19700101Religious [a1] experience is a new western topic in religious studies. Although there are different interpretations; in general, religious experience refers to the connection of human being to the Sacred. There is no match for this expression in Islamic texts; however, there are expressions with similar connotations in the theosophical texts. In this article the term religious experience is used in a general framework such that it contains the theosophical and philosophical experiences as well. Reviewing the apparent and internal experiences, the author goes on to explain the theosophical and philosophical experiences. It then discusses the religious experience, as a wide source of knowledge ranging from the knowledge of God to a deep pilosophical cognition and mystical tendency, and even as a source of revelation.Religious [a1] experience is a new western topic in religious studies. Although there are different interpretations; in general, religious experience refers to the connection of human being to the Sacred. There is no match for this expression in Islamic texts; however, there are expressions with similar connotations in the theosophical texts. In this article the term religious experience is used in a general framework such that it contains the theosophical and philosophical experiences as well. Reviewing the apparent and internal experiences, the author goes on to explain the theosophical and philosophical experiences. It then discusses the religious experience, as a wide source of knowledge ranging from the knowledge of God to a deep pilosophical cognition and mystical tendency, and even as a source of revelation.https://jpht.ut.ac.ir/article_11287_cc889f02a4050d72efd959a1401c59fe.pdf