• OpenAccess
    • List of Articles Laws

      • Open Access Article

        1 - Ethical Doctrines in Aristotle and Ibn Miskawayh Razi
        Ali Mohammad  Sajedi Hajar  Darayitabar
        Different schools of ethics have presented different doctrines in the field of ethics. Ethical doctrines include the premises, criteria, and referents of ethical acts. The differences between schools of ethics in their doctrines are rooted in their philosophical princip More
        Different schools of ethics have presented different doctrines in the field of ethics. Ethical doctrines include the premises, criteria, and referents of ethical acts. The differences between schools of ethics in their doctrines are rooted in their philosophical principles. The ethical schools of both Ibn Miskawayh and Aristotle are virtualistic. Ibn Miskawayh believes that the most important prerequisites for ethical acts are self-knowledge, education, and training. Both thinkers explain the criteria for ethical acts relying on the principles of free will, intellect, moderation, and religious laws and analyze their referents based on elements of virtue, joy, friendship, etc. However, given the different worldviews of these two philosophers, their ideas of any of the ethical elements and referents are also different. Unlike Aristotle, Ibn Miskawayh attaches great importance to Islamic laws in relation to his ethical views. Moreover, he is able to provide a more successful model of ethical doctrines based on his monotheistic worldview. Influenced by religious teachings, he also believes that religious training plays an influential and efficient role in ethical growth and development. This paper is intended to explore ethical doctrines by comparing the ideas of these two philosophers. Manuscript profile
      • Open Access Article

        2 - Socrates’ Approach and Our Approach (Socrates’ Historical Views of Iran and Iranians)
        Seyyed Musa  Dibaj
        Previously, in a paper entitled Iranian Thought in Socratic Thought (presented in the “Conference on Commemorating Socrates, the Greek Philosopher”, Tehran, 2001), the writer of the present paper argued that in Plato’s dialogues, the rights of Iranians and the Iranian g More
        Previously, in a paper entitled Iranian Thought in Socratic Thought (presented in the “Conference on Commemorating Socrates, the Greek Philosopher”, Tehran, 2001), the writer of the present paper argued that in Plato’s dialogues, the rights of Iranians and the Iranian government have not been clearly stipulated. Socrates, who expected Iranians to officially recognize the government of Athens, does not explicitly talk about the official or de facto recognition of the Achaemenid government. Plato has spoken about the poets, playwrights, and historiographers of other nations, particularly those of Iranians, more freely than other Greek thinkers and scholars. However, he does not believe that Athenians’ democratic rights are conditioned by protecting the rights of other nations, including Iranians and Egyptians, and recognizing the legitimacy of their governments. The present paper is intended to define and review the features of Athenian self-knowledge and Iranian self-knowledge and compare them with each other. As Socrates himself considers it justified, strangers can also discuss the nature of “terms”, including the description of the characteristics of the Greeks. As we know, once Phaedrus told Socrates, “Yes, Socrates, you can easily invent tales of Egypt, or of any other country.” In this paper, the writer does not intend to copy Socrates’ approach in this regard; neither does he intend to provide a mythical, narrative, or historical account of the conditions of Greece during the time of this philosopher. Rather, he seeks to extensively explain and interpret his political view of Iran, specifically with reference to Alcibiades and Laws dialogues. Manuscript profile
      • Open Access Article

        3 - An Interpretation of the Dialogue of Laws from the Viewpoint of Leo Strauss Based on Fārābī’s Treatise of Talkhīṣ al-Nawāmīs
        Havva Jami Seyed Mohammad  Hakkak Qazvini Ali Naghi  Baghershahi Shervin Moghimi Zanjani
        Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters exami More
        Presently, historicism is the dominant approach in interpreting philosophical traditions. This approach considers each science, particularly philosophy, to be in some way related to the specific lifetime of thinkers. Within this framework, historicist interpreters examine Plato’s works in relation to four different periods, with the dialogue of Laws belonging to the latest period of his life, indicating a change in his approach. However, in opposition to any kind of historicist view, Leo Strauss disagrees with this division and believes that there is no change of direction in Plato’s overall philosophy – from the first to the last dialogue – and all of them address philosophical problems from a specific standpoint. We encounter this comprehensive approach also in Strauss’ reading of the dialogue of Laws. In fact, Strauss believes that, in order to grasp a real understanding of the dialogue of Laws, one must follow his method and consider Fārābī’s interpretation of this work in Talkhīṣ al-nawāmīs as a basis. Strauss also maintains that it is the only way through which one can go beyond the limits of historical interpretation. While providing a brief discussion of the historical interpretation of the Laws, the purpose of the present study is to examine Fārābī’s interpretation of the dialogue of Laws, Strauss’ critique and view of this interpretation, and the most distinctive features of Strauss’ innovative interpretation of this dialogue. Manuscript profile