List of Articles طبيعت

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Life in Harmony with Nature in the View of Three Stoic Philosophers: Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius
  Mohammad Javad  Esmaeili Sina  Masheyekhi
  The main slogan of Stoic philosophy is “Life in Harmony with Nature”, which also signifies the unity between physics and ethics in stoics’ ideas. The study of the roots of this slogan in the view of Stoic philosophers; from Zeno of Cilium, the founder of Stoic philosoph More

  The main slogan of Stoic philosophy is “Life in Harmony with Nature”, which also signifies the unity between physics and ethics in stoics’ ideas. The study of the roots of this slogan in the view of Stoic philosophers; from Zeno of Cilium, the founder of Stoic philosophy to Marcus, Aurelius, the last Stoic philosophers, indicates the expansion of the semantic domain of “Life in Harmony with Nature”, as follows: 1) individual nature in the sense of harmony with the rational faculty; 2) general nature in the sense of harmony with fate and those affairs which are beyond our control, and 3) social nature in the sense of harmony with society and social laws. Interestingly enough, in Stoic ethics there are some terms for each of these semantic domains in relation to natural sciences; for example, self-preservation, kindness, common sense, and providence in the world. This paper mainly focuses on the problem of functions of “Life in Harmony with Nature” in Stoic ethics based on the ideas of Seneca, Epictetus, and Aurelius as recorded in their existing works. Finally, it concludes that Stoic philosophers, particularly the three mentioned above, mainly emphasize the Stoic concept of “Life in Harmony with Nature” in order to create a unity between Man’s inner order and the general order of nature and society. This is because, in this school of philosophy, Man is a part of the whole and must use this relationship in order to attain happiness and harmony between themselves, society, and the whole. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Moving from Anselm’s and Descartes’ Arguments to another Version of the Conceptual Argument on the Existence of God
  Amir  Divani
  The conceptual argument which is called the “ontological argument” in Western philosophy moves from a concept in the mind to its external referent. This argument is only about a concept which exclusively applies to God. Philosophers unanimously concede that the move fro More

  The conceptual argument which is called the “ontological argument” in Western philosophy moves from a concept in the mind to its external referent. This argument is only about a concept which exclusively applies to God. Philosophers unanimously concede that the move from the (mere) concept to the referent is not allowed; at the same time, they agree that the concept representing God, like the existence of God, which is unique and different from that of any other existent, is different from all other concepts and has no parallel among them. Anselm and Descartes have presented the conceptual argument in different ways. Irrespective of the truth or falsity of the leveled criticisms against these two arguments, the present paper suggests another version of this argument (conceptual argument) which, under the necessary conditions, will attain its end more conveniently. This concept enjoys certain features, among which representation is of great importance. The intended concept is the same concept of existence; an intelligible concept which is a part of the nature of the intellect and stands at a distance from any kind of association with whatness and non-existence. After interpreting this argument and exploring the writings of Muslim philosophers, including Mulla Sadra, the author concludes that some of his words could be used as proof for the truth of this claim. If this argument yields fruit, it demonstrates not only the general capability of the intellect in knowing God and His Attributes but also the possibility of providing a new version of some of the objectives of the great figures in the fields of philosophy and gnosis. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - Nature in the Views of Greek and Muslim Philosophers
  داود محمدیانی
  20.1001.1.20089589.1400.12.2.7.5
  Undoubtedly, nature has always attracted the attention of scientists and philosophers as the loci of the genesis and growth of natural existents and its current. Scientists working in the field of empirical sciences mainly seek the knowledge of natural existents and law More

  Undoubtedly, nature has always attracted the attention of scientists and philosophers as the loci of the genesis and growth of natural existents and its current. Scientists working in the field of empirical sciences mainly seek the knowledge of natural existents and laws of nature, while philosophers basically deal with the knowledge of nature itself and its structure and try to provide an answer to the questions of what the meaning of nature is, what its structure is, what relationship exists between existents and nature, whether nature is the primary source of the appearance of existents in the world, and whether nature, as matter and form, is a cradle for the appearance of various forms of existents. Greek philosophers and, later, Muslim philosophers have provided various responses to these questions. In ancient Greek philosophy, physis or nature means growth, living, and life. This meaning, which had provided the basis for pre-Socratic philosophy, changed into the “content of the world” and “maker of things” in Stoic philosophy. Plato also defined physis as the origin of the appearance of all things. He used the words technē (art) and archē (origin) to explain the emergence of the world and considered the creation of the world as an artistic innovation. Aristotle, who viewed the world synonymous with the whole nature, believed that nature is the source of motion and change in things; however, Muslim thinkers have provided various ideas about nature. Ikhwān al-Ṣafā maintained that nature is the fifth level of the levels of being and the “active” aspect of the world, with matter as its passive aspect. Ibn Sīnā considered nature and the interactions therein as God’s act and believed that nature is the cause of the appearance of corporeal substance by synthesizing matter and form. Unlike the Peripatetics, who believed that archetypes are the same as the nature of things, Suhrawardī rejected archetypes and replaced them with luminary nature. Finally, Mullā Ṣadrā viewed the world of nature identical with renewal and change and maintained that the nature of substance enjoys permanent motion and flow. Manuscript profile