A Review of the Arguments for Mental Existence and their Denotation

Hassan Mu’alemi / Associate Professor in Baqer al-‘Uloom University


Received: 2015/11/09                              Accepted: 2016/11/29



The philosophers’ claims in the discussion on mental existence are as follows: (a) Negation of the superfluity of knowledge of outside world; and (b) substantial correspondence regarding the substances. They have argued that they are capable of proving the first claim, although it is axiomatic and needless of any proof; this is because the existence of mental concepts is a conscientious matter. Those arguments, however, are not able to prove the second claim, unless some other premises and introductions are added and referring the discussion on “correspondence of knowledge” to the dependence of theories on axioms, which is the proper place for discussion on correspondence. What are axiomatic and true in the discussion on mental existence are as follows:

  1. There are conceptions in the mind that refer to the external world;
  2. These conceptions correspond to their essential references.

Finally, the aforementioned arguments cannot prove that external substances themselves come to mind exactly or the corresponding concepts come to mind.


KEY WORDS: arguments for mental existence, mind-object correspondence, non relationality of knowledge.

Judgeablity of Existence


Abbas Nikzad / Associate Professor in Department of Islamic Teaching University of Medical Sciences, Babol                                                        nikzad37@yahoo.com

Received: 2016/03/07                              Accepted: 2016/10/02



In the two articles entitled “Non-Judgeablity of Existence” (2010) and “The Obstacles to the Judgeablity of the essence of Existence” (2014), the author was seeking to prove that the essence of existence is non-judgeable. In other words, it is impossible to impose prescriptions and descriptions on the truth of existence.

In the first article, the proofs are as follows: (a) neither presence nor absence of description; (b) neither the pure existence of description, nor the contradiction to it; (c) neither the absolute existence of description, nor being an instance of it; (d) the difference between the definitions of descriptions and the definition of absolute existence. Similarly, in the second article, the four obstacles have been referred to: (a) non-plurality of existence; (b) impossibility of accidents on the truth of existence; (c) impossibility of essentially obligatory accidents and essentially impossible accidents on the existence; and (d) limitlessness of truth of existence on the non-Judgeablity of existence.

The present article is seeking to review the proofs of non-Judgeablity of existence as well as the obstacles of its Judgeablity. It seems that the spirit of both articles and the related arguments as well as obstacles are the same, and that discovering the main sophistries can falsify the validity of both articles. The present article is seeking to show the weak points of the arguments and obstacles in both articles in brief.


KEY WORDS: existence, absolute existence, judgeablity, the Necessary Being, contradictory.

Gradation and Similarity of Existence for Avicenna and Thomas Aquinas


Reza Akbariyan / Professor in Department of Philosophy Teacher Training University                                                                             dr.r.akbarian@gmail.com

@ Asghar Pur-Bahrami / PhD of Philosophy Teacher Training University


Muhammad Sa’idi Mehr / Professor in Department of Philosophy Teacher Training University                                                                    saeedi@modares.ac.ir

Ali Afzali / Associate Professor of Theology Research Institute of Iran Theosophy and Philosophy                                                                       ali_mafzali@yahoo.com

Received: 2015/10/03                              Accepted: 2016/12/19



The present article is seeking to investigate the question of why is, in Thomas Aquinas’ metaphysics, gradation in the concept of existence not imaginable in spite of his belief in similarity of existence. In addition to Aristotle, Thomas has followed Avicenna in many of his positions. Aristotle regarded “being” as something other than synonym and homonym. Avicenna divided “synonym” into two groups: “univocal” and “equivocal”, and considered the third usage of “term” for Aristotle to be in “equivocal synonym”. Since he believes in similarity between cause and effect, he defends gradation and gradation in the concept of existence. Although Thomas does not speak of “similarity in existence”, he speaks of a third type called “analogous term” along with synonym and homonym. Although linguistic analyses support the idea of synonymy of the “analogous terms” in Thomas’ philosophy and “gradation” in Avicenna’s, metaphysical analyses of similarity on the basis of proportion by the new scholars who study Thomas is different from gradation of the concept of existence. Their analysis of similarity on the basis of proportion is close to Avicenna’s gradation of existence. However, since Thomas does not believe in similarity between the creator and the created, we may not consider this analysis of the above scholars as a proper interpretation of Thomas’ view on similarity.

KEY WORDS: gradation, similarity, Thomas Aquinas, Avicenna, Alexander of Aphrodisias, Porphyry, gradation of existence, similarity of existence.

An Inquiry about the Rational Approach to God’s

Relationship with the Universe


Hadi Fana’ie Ne’mat Sara / Faculty Member of  Imam Khomeini International University of Qazwin                                                                    fanaei@isr.ikiu.ac.ir

Received: 2016/01/11                              Accepted: 2016/09/09



The present article investigates about different rational approaches to God’s relationship with the universe. The agentive-causal relationship is among the most common relations delineated by philosophers. Besides, maximal and minimal approaches to God’s relationship with the universe are also assessable. In the present article, through scrutinizing some of the rationalist scholars of the ancient Greece and the Middle Ages, as well as the mechanical view of the universe and the views of Muslim philosophers, the maximal emphasis on God’s agentive-causal relationship with the universe has been delineated. Then in a second step, we have assessed and investigated the capacity and success of the explanation presented; and finally, we have passed through exclusivism about God’s relationship with the universe, criticizing it to achieve a comprehensive and far-reaching analysis of relationship with elements such as efficiency. In this model, the relationship is not merely agentive-causal; rather, it includes other relations such as governing, subsisting, all-sustaining, witnessing, and knowing relationships.


KEY WORDS: God, relationship, knower, agency, causality, generation, subsistence.

Paradigm; Fact or Fiction

(Semantic Analysis, Origin and Evaluation)


Muhammad Hussein-Zade Yazdi / Professor in Department of Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                     mohammad_h@qabas.net

Received: 2016/04/30                              Accepted: 2016/02/17



In facing paradigm, some of the most basic and most important methodological questions with close relations to epistemology are the following: is research, whether in the realm of natural or human sciences, or even in epistemological issues, possible without the realization of paradigms and subjective assumptions? What role do paradigms play in research, methodology, knowledge and access to reality? To get the answer to such questions, we must first see what the paradigm is and whence does it originate. The term “paradigm” which has been recently considered in the philosophy of science and extended into other realms of human knowledge is full of ambiguity. One of those ambiguities relates to whether it is intended to mean a mental structure, a basis, or a model. Since this issue has been extensively penetrated into deep, Influential, and fundamental realms such as the philosophy of religion, philosophy, epistemology and methodology, it is inevitable to conduct researches about it. Among the most important achievements of this study is the fact that through a semantic analysis of this term and stating its origin, its ambiguity is removed and one can judge about the possibility of research with or without a paradigm.


KEY WORDS: foundation, model, mental framework, linguistic games, truth, theory, knowledge.

The Logical Relationship of Value and Fact


@ Mehdi Meshgi / Faculty Member of Teacher-Training of Ethics Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                       meshki.qom@gmail.com

Muhammad Mehdi Abbas Aghuy / PhD Student of Comparative Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute     mahdi.abbasi202@gmail.com

Received: 2015/11/12                              Accepted: 2016/07/24



Discussion of the relationship between reality and value began in serious form by David Hume in 18th century AD. After that, the view favoring the relationship had proponents such as Jorge Edward Moore and opponents such as John Searle. Hume argued that no “value proposition” can be logically inferred from a real proposition. In Islamic philosophy, this fact became closely linked to the discussion on the perceptions of practical and theoretical intellect. Resolving this issue has a considerable effect in the evaluation of propositions in humanities, and is a prelude to the discussion of relationship between “science” and “value”. In the present article, we have presented a detailed discussion about the background of this issue and investigated various views regarding the logical relationship between “must” and “is”, and presented a new explanation of Hume’s view, while offering new reviews of Allama Tabataba’ie’s view, to arrive at Ayatollah Mesbah’s view on the mode of the logical relationship between value propositions and real propositions using the necessity to compare with others.


KEY WORDS: value, fact, value proposition, must, is, logical relationship.

An Inquiry about Paradoxes Negating the Principle of



@ Mustafa Jahan-Fekr / PhD Student of Comparative Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute             jahanfekrmostafa@yahoo.com

Muhammad Fana’ie Eshkawari / Professor in Department of Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                            fanaei.ir@gmail.com

Received: 2015/11/26                              Accepted: 2016/09/29



The principle of non-contradiction is, according to many scholars, the most central principle in human knowledge, whose negation would lead to the closure of sciences. Since long ago, some paradoxes have been put forward in refutation of this principle. Resolving those paradoxes is necessary for defending the validity of human knowledge and removing the sophistic doubts. In the present article, we have attempted to resolve, through the analysis of the reality of truth, some important paradoxes and show that these paradoxes do not negate the abovementioned principle. Regarding the Liar Paradox, while offering a solution for it, we have argued that the paradox lacks the necessary conditions to be called “true” or “false”. We have also showed that how Grelling’s paradox is resolved by considering contradiction of predicates. The paradoxes of Russell and Counter are indeed resulted from the confusion between “universal and general” as well as “validity and truth”. Thus, none of the paradoxes negate the principle of non-contradiction.


KEY WORDS: truth, falsity, contrast of disposition and non-disposition, statement, paradox.

Language and Society in John Searle’s Thought


@ Javad Abedini / PhD Student of Comparative Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                                           abedinijd@yahoo.com

Mujtaba Mesbah / Associate Professor in Department of Philosophy Imam Khomeini Educational and Research Institute                          m-mesbah@Qabas.net

Received: 2016/02/08                              Accepted: 2017/03/15



Since the linguistic turn in the Western philosophy, language turned into a central subject in philosophical studies and researches. The view that considered language merely as a device for communication was replaced by a view based on which language was not only a device for transferring thoughts, but rather the founding element of thought itself, i.e. our understanding of realities, and even underlying the existence of realities. Society as one of the most important factors in the relationship between language and the world has always been discussed by philosophers, and its existence has been considered as relying upon language. What has been, however, less debated is a precise analysis of the role of language in the formation of society and how social realities are dependent upon language from a philosophical point of view. John Searle, the contemporary analytical philosopher of mind and language, is the most prominent – or at least one of the most prominent – philosophers dealing with this subject. In Searle’s works, one may find at least two explanations for this issue. The main purpose of the present article is to investigate them.


KEY WORDS: language, society, institutional reality, Searle.