یادداشت سردبیر

per Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-0216234articleیادداشت سردبیرHossein Kalbasi Ashtarihkashtari@yahoo.com1Professor of Philosophy at Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iranامروزه با گسترش کاربردهای «هوش مصنوعی» بمثابه ابزاری هوشمند و رقابت بر سر تولید نسخه¬های پیشرفته¬تر، تقریباً هیچ عرصه&zwnj;یی از عرصه¬های زیست انسانی از تأثیرات این پدیده دور نمانده و بموازات تحوّل جنبه¬های فناورانه آن، تأملات و گفتگوهای وسیعی پیرامون چگونگی تحوّل در مناسبات انسانی&zwnj;ـ&zwnj;اجتماعی نیز شکل گرفته است. تأثیرات این پدیده در قلمروهای ارتباطات و تسهیلات ناشی از آن، اقتصاد و تجارت و بازرگانی منطقه&zwnj;یی و بین&zwnj;المللی و بویژه بازار کار و سرمایه، گردش اطلاعات و داده¬ها و تبادل تجربیات علمی و فنّی، گوشه¬یی از دامنه این تأثیرات را دربرمیگیرد. امّا در اینجا و بمناسبت قلمرو تخصّصی این نشریه، به ذکر چند ملاحظه در سه قلمرو آموزشی، پژوهشی و اخلاقی آن میپردازیم. الف) تأثیرات این پدیده در قلمرو آموزش، تنها به جنبه¬های فنّی محدود نشده و نخواهد شد. در آیندۀ نزدیک نه&zwnj;تنها نظام و ساختار آموزش ـ&zwnj;بمعنای حضور رو در روی معلّم و متعلّم&zwnj;ـ بلکه مؤلفه¬هایی مانند متن و سرفصل و رده¬بندی و سنجش و آزمون و مانند اینها نیز در معرض دگرگونی قرار خواهد گرفت. ب) در قلمرو پژوهش، بموازات تغییر و تحوّل در امکان دسترسی به مدارک و منابع پژوهشی، فرآیند پژوهش از آغاز تا انجام، نیز دگرگون خواهد شد. اگر زمانی مهمترین دغدغۀ پژوهشگر در واژۀ « جستجو» خلاصه میشد، از این پس دغدغۀ جدیدی بنام «انبوه داده&zwnj;ها» جایگزین آن خواهد شد و پژوهشگر باید تکلیف خود را در برابر سیل عظیمی از داده¬های علمی مشخص کند. و مهمتر از همه، میزان نقش و سهم پژوهشگر در خروجیهای پژوهشی باید مورد باز تعریف قرار گیرد. ج) با دگرگونی در دو عرصۀ آموزش و پژوهش، دغدغه و گفتمان مهمتری شکل گرفته است که احتمالاً بتوان آن را ذیل «اخلاق هوش مصنوعی» تعریف کرده و مندرج ساخت. اگر زمانی از مالکیت معنوی آثار بعنوان عامل مهم حقوقی امتیازات مترتب بر آن سخن گفته میشد، امروزه با کمرنگ شدن مرزهای اختصاصی و پر رنگ شدن اشتراک در داده¬ها، بسیاری از مفاهیم، ضوابط و قوانین مترتب بر آن نیز باید بازنگری و باز تعریف شود. آنچه از ملاحظات فوق برمی&zwnj;آید، شکل&zwnj;گیری نوعی نگرانی ناشی از برهم خوردن نظم و نظامهای سنتی اجتماعی و فرهنگی است که میتوان از آن بمثابه «بحران» یاد کرد، که وجه بارز آن بیتردید خود را در عرصۀ فرهنگ آشکار میسازد. کمرنگ شدن ارزشهای بومی، بحاشیه رفتن زبانیهای غیر مسلّط، هدایت و کنترل افکار و دیدگاه¬ها بویژه با تزریق داده¬های نادرست، نمونه¬هایی از این بحران است. بدین موارد، اموری مانند نقض حریم خصوصی، سوء استفاده از اطلاعات فردی و تأثیرگذاریهای غیراخلاقی بر افکار عمومی را نیز باید افزود. ورود اصحاب اندیشه و بویژه فیلسوفان و اهالی حکمت به این عرصه و گشایش باب تأملات و گفتگوها در جهت تبیین موقعیت¬های آتی بشر بویژه در مواجهه با وضعیت جدید، بیش از پیش ضروری بنظر میرسد.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/53174هوش مصنوعی اخلاق هوش مصنوعی پژوهش آموزش انبوه داده‌هاper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-02162526articleChallenges of Cultural Relativism in Oswald Spengler’s History-Oriented ThoughtReza Gandomi Nasrabadirgandomi@ut.ac.ir1Associate Professor, Philosophy Department, Farabi College, University of Tehran, Qom, IranSpengler places great emphasis on the uniqueness of cultures in the comparative morphology of cultures. From his perspective, cultures are independent and self-sufficient because each culture possesses a specific spirit and symbol, and its reflections can be observed in religion, politics, economics, and art. In other words, each culture has its own birth, death, growth and, generally, its own laws. Consequently, cultures exist in isolation, and their comparison is impossible. Accordingly, he considered most comparisons superficial, illusory, and baseless. On the other hand, cultures, like any organic and living entity, inevitably go through similar stages of birth, youth, old age, and death and decline. Precisely because of this, any stage of a culture's development can be compared with a similar stage of another culture because “contemporaneity” here means being at the same stage, not being synchronous. In other words, emphasizing the self-sufficiency of cultures means opposing any systemization and universal law, as well as accepting the relativity and incomparability of cultures. Conversely, the comparative morphology of cultures implies an acknowledgement of a trans-historical and trans-cultural law applicable to all cultures. Some have referred to this contradiction as the paradox of comparison and have tried to resolve it in some way. In this paper, in addition to clarifying the two aforementioned viewpoints, an attempt has been made to find a common ground and reconciliation between them, rather than sacrificing one for the other.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/52383Spengler comparative paradox singularity of cultures relativism comparative morphologyper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-021622748articleMoral Motivation Based on OriginMajid Tayebi JebeliMajid.t.j1981@gmail.com1Mohammad Shokrimohammadshokry44@gmail.com2Insha-Allah Rahmatin.sophia1388@gmail.com3PhD Candidate of Philosophy, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, IranAssistant Professor, Philosophy Department, Faculty of Humanities, Islamic Azad University, North Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran Professor at the Department of Philosophy and Islamic Epistemology-Religions and Irfan, Faculty of Humanities and Literature, Islamic Azad University, Central Tehran Branch, Tehran, IranThe present paper explores the nature of moral motivation and its place in explaining moral action. Focusing on philosophical analyses, especially from the perspective of Kantian ethics, it is shown that the moral value of an action lies not in its consequences, but in the agent's intention and type of motivation. In this regard, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivations is explained, and the role of good will and sense of duty in the formation of genuine moral motivation is emphasized. Furthermore, by examining the relationship between reason, emotion, and will, the nature of moral motivation and its differences based on origin are analyzed. The research results indicate that moral motivation is a necessary condition for the moral validity of actions; what leads to a moral act may be based on personal interest or the fulfillment of moral duty. The paper also addresses the issues of utilitarianism, egoism, and altruism, which determine the type of moral motivation. Additionally, the difference between rationalist and empiricist philosophers, who, respectively, considered the origin of moral impetus to be reason or emotion, is discussed. The leading rationalist philosopher in this discussion is Kant, and the leading empiricist philosopher is David Hume. Despite the differences in their views, the authors aim for a conclusion that encompasses both perspectives.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/50712moral motivation rationality emotion moral value interestper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-021624980articleAn Evaluation of the Status of “Religious” Dimension of Culture in Max Weber’s Theory of Sociology of ReligionAmir Sadeghiamir.sadeqi@gmail.com1Assistant Professor, Institute for Humanities and Cultural Studies, Tehran, IranThe question of what role religion plays and can play in today's cultural world necessitates a dual understanding of our lived cultural world, religion's relationship with it, and religion’s place within it. Accordingly, the author will first briefly review the history of religious thought and its cultural contexts and then examine one of the most important theoretical formulations in this field within Max Weber's sociology; a theory replete with direct and indirect references to religion and its connection to the formation of social constructs. It can be boldly stated that the place of religion in Weber's theory is of such importance that ignoring it would lead to the collapse of the entirety of what is known as Weber's sociology. To philosophically examine this religious dimension, while explaining the sociological characteristics of Weber’s view on religion, the philosophical foundations of establishing religion as an inseparable dimension and part of culture will be analyzed, and Weber’s use of the concepts of value-relevance, rationalization, and their connection to religion in sociology will be investigated. Finally, the present paper aims to offer a systematic critique of Weber’s theoretical framework based on a philosophical approach within the limits of the author’s methodological stance.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/52251Max Weber Culture Religion Value-relation Rationalization Sociology of Religionper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-0216281100articleAnaxagoras’ Encounter with Parmenides: A Critical Analysis of the Theory of Continuity and ExpansionGhasem Pourhasanporhassan@atu.ac.ir1Zahra Hajishakaramza.hajishahkaram@gmail.com2Pedram Pourhasanpedrampourhasanpedrampourhasan@gmail.com3Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, IranPhD in Sociology, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, IranPhD Candidate of Philosophy of Art, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamedan, IranThe important question regarding the encounter involves the triadic of interpretation, expansion, and opposition of an idea. Should Anaxagoras’ philosophical system be considered in opposition to Parmenides’ philosophy or as a continuation, explanation, and interpretation of it? Interpretations and short writings indicate neither mere opposition nor continuity and expansion; rather, they primarily point to an interpretive approach and even an independent approach. The prevailing view is that Anaxagoras based his theory on the background of Greek philosophy and earlier philosophers, and it is particularly thought that he sought to provide an answer to Parmenides’ account of the nature of reality. Parmenides is the first Greek philosopher to argue that anything that fundamentally exists can neither come into being nor perish. Anaxagoras’ approach, concepts, and interpretations show that he incorporated this idea into his system. Nevertheless, it can be said that Anaxagoras’ philosophy was formed in relation to Parmenides’ philosophy, although it is not merely a continuation or expansion of it. This paper attempts to examine and evaluate the various views of researchers regarding Anaxagoras’ intellectual relationship with Parmenides in order to clarify that, contrary to the common belief, Anaxagoras was not merely a continuation of Parmenides’ thought and diverged from him in certain areas, even adopting an independent approach regarding three topics: affirmative cosmology, numerical monism, and teleology. Historical sources and interpretive evidence suggest that Anaxagoras largely adopted a different and opposing approach in his encounter with Parmenides.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/53175narrative nature of reality Parmenides Anaxagoras agreement and disagreementper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-02162101116articleA Reflection on the Principle of "The Pure is Neither Dual or repeated"Javad Soufijavadsoufi14114@gmail.com1PhD in Islamic Philosophy and Kalam, University of Tehran, Tehran, IranThe principle “The pure thing is neither dual or repeated”, sometimes referred to as “The pure thing has no distinction and no repetition,” is a philosophical principle first observed in the writings of Shaykh al-Ishrāq. The purport of this principle is: if something is purified from all that is superfluous to it and only its essence remains, it does not admit multiplicity or repetition. Although, in the view of Muslim philosophers, conceiving and assenting to this rule is not very difficult, careful reflection indicates that there are certain ambiguities in the meaning of “pure existence.” The meaning of “thing” in “pure thing” is either quiddity or existence. If it is quiddity, a pure quiddity that is not accompanied by anything else will only exist in the mind because a natural universal is accompanied by accidents. However, if the meaning of “thing” is existence, then a precise interpretation of pure existence must first be provided, and then the principle must be proven because the philosophers' interpretation of pure existence is based on the premise that the Necessary Being is pure existence and lacks anything that indicates the imperfection and limitation of contingents, such as potency, matter, and quiddity, pure existence, and so on. This is while, according to these interpretations, some objections are raised against the principle and, thus, it is not complete.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/51890philosophical principle pure thing quiddity existence pure existenceper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-02162117138articleHistorical Evolution of the Theory of "Preservation of Quiddity"Hossein khorsandi Aminh.khorsandiamin@gmail.com1Mohammad Ali Vatandoostma.vatandoost@um.ac.ir2Alireza KohansalKohansal-a@um.ac.ir3PhD Candidate of Transcendent Philosophy, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranAssistant Professor, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranAssociate Professor, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranProviding a solution for connecting the mind and the external world in acquired knowledge is a very important, yet difficult, problem. Through ontological analyses of mental forms, Muslim philosophers and mutikallimūn, have examined their relationship with external realities. However, they have faced some ambiguities and questions in this regard. It is a question whether they believe in essentialism and the quiddative identity of the mind and external world or not. A study of their scientific works in this area shows a division in their statements. Part of their discourse supports their belief in the quiddative identity of the mind and external world (the theory of “preservation of quiddity”), while another part creates the impression that they believed in the theory of the phantom. Therefore, a historical-analytical study of their views will not be without benefit. In this paper, by examining the works of great figures such as Ibn Sīnā, Shaykh al-Ishrāq, Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī, Khwājah Naṣīr al-Dīn al-Ṭūsī, Mīr Sayyid Sharīf Jurjānī, and Mullā Ṣadrā, the authors trace the theory of “preservation of quiddity.” After delving into the views of each of these great figures, they examine the belief in the theory of the phantom in the Peripatetic philosophy. On the one hand, based on their findings from the words of former philosophers and by criticizing their support of the theory of the phantom, they clarify the philosophers’ general belief in the theory of “preservation of quiddity”. On the other hand, they bring to light the weakness of attributing the theory of the phantom to philosophers such as Avicenna.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/52135preservation of quiddity essentialism theory of the phantom mentally-positedness of quiddityper Sadra Islamic Philosophy Research Instituteتاریخ فلسفه2008-95892676-51602026-02162139160articleThe Philosophical Seminary of Sabzevar, an Educational Center or a School of Thought?Mohammad Mahdi Kamalim.mkamali@yahoo.com1Mohammad Hadi Kamalikamali.mohammadhadi@gmail.com2Assistant Professor, Razavi Islamic Sciences Research Institute, Islamic Research Foundation of Astan-i Quds Razavi, Mashhad, IranPhD in Transcendent Philosophy, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, IranThe philosophical seminary of Sabzevar, founded by Ḥājj Mullā Hādī Sabzevārī in the 13th century AH, is considered one of the most important philosophical centers in Iran in recent centuries. However, a serious question arises in this regard: Can this center be recognized as an independent philosophical school, or should it be classified as a philosophical educational center (madrasa)? The present study, following an analytical approach, examines the distinguishing characteristics of a philosophical school from a philosophical center and investigates the position of the Sabzevar seminary within this framework. In this analysis, certain criteria such as conceptual innovation, theoretical coherence, sustainability beyond time and place, and the ability to create a movement are considered as characteristics of a philosophical school, while dependence on place and individuals, temporal limitations, and focus on education are introduced as features of a philosophical academy or center. The results show that the philosophical seminary of Sabzevar, despite its valuable scientific achievements and the training of prominent students, was more of a continuation and expansion of Mullā Ṣadrā’s Transcendent Philosophy and lacked the fundamental innovations and theoretical independence necessary to form an independent philosophical school. However, it can undoubtedly be considered a vibrant and flourishing philosophical center that, in addition to explaining and strengthening Transcendent Philosophy, played a significant role in promoting and transmitting it to other philosophical centers.http://hop.mullasadra.org/Article/49315philosophical center of Sabzevar philosophical school philosophical academy Hajj Mulla Hadi Sabzevari Transcendent Philosophy