• Home
  • Mehrdad Ahmadi
  • OpenAccess
    • List of Articles Mehrdad Ahmadi

      • Open Access Article

        1 - Heidegger’s Interpretation of Anaximander’s Arche, Participation, and Time
        Ghasem  Purhassan Mehrdad Ahmadi
        Heidegger believed that a metaphysical conceptualization of the relationship between identity and difference is not original and maintained that such negligence is rooted in the fact that metaphysics has forgotten “difference as such” as pure unfoldedness. In his view, More
        Heidegger believed that a metaphysical conceptualization of the relationship between identity and difference is not original and maintained that such negligence is rooted in the fact that metaphysics has forgotten “difference as such” as pure unfoldedness. In his view, the Greeks had a clearer image of the above-mentioned relationship. In his interpretation of Anaximander’s view, Heidegger demonstrates that, while viewing all being as a whole, Anaximander does not ignore the differences among them. Based on Heidegger’s interpretation, through introducing apeiron and time as two fundamental elements, Anaximander managed to have an early encounter with the relationship between identity and difference. Heidegger called this relationship “participation” and maintained that this concept can lead one to fundamental difference. This is because, unlike metaphysical theories, it does not depend on external elements, upon which correlation relies; rather, it depends on the being of beings. Apeiron and time open the door to a pure space in the unfoldedness of which beings find their essence and, at the same time, depend so much on each other that the whole is created based on their mutual relation. Manuscript profile
      • Open Access Article

        2 - The Relationship Between Finitude and Pure Theory in Heidegger’s Reading of Aristotle
        Mehrdad Ahmadi Mohamadreza Asadi
        In Aristotle’s view, theoretical activity is an emotion-free and worldless activity that leaves all negative and resisting affairs behind. As a result, because of the falsity of finitude, error has no way into theoretical activity. Accordingly, theory enjoys a specific More
        In Aristotle’s view, theoretical activity is an emotion-free and worldless activity that leaves all negative and resisting affairs behind. As a result, because of the falsity of finitude, error has no way into theoretical activity. Accordingly, theory enjoys a specific kind of autonomy, in other words, an individual involved in pure theorizing perceives that in the course of theoretical activity he is immune to not only any emotion but also to any error in his purely theoretical activities. However, the essential point here is that in Heidegger’s view, Aristotle could never provide such a status for Man at the level of theory without undergoing a change in his understanding of existence and moving to the realm of poiesis. According to Heidegger, the horizon of ousiology of existence is the result of a transformation in the Greeks’ understanding of existence. As a result, the structural finitude of the emergence of existence and the finite position of the theoretician among existents enable him the develop an absolute knowledge of at least one existent, that is, theos or existing God. Therefore, the present paper aims to demonstrate how, based on Aristotle’s ousiology, knowledge in the sense of theorizing has turned into a deserving desire for all human beings and has emerged as a possibility for transcending the essential finitude of theory. Manuscript profile