An Intersubjective Approach in the Validation of Axioms Considering Islamic Philosophy

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran

2 Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Education of Ahl al-Bayt (AS), University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

چکیده

Axioms are crucial to epistemic frameworks, as several schools of the history of science have recognized. The issue of the current research is that in the validation of axioms, what defects does the intuitive approach entail, and how can the intersubjective approach (based on the ideas of Islamic philosophers) be explained as an alternative, less-known system? The former is dedicated to clarifying and criticizing what is called the intuitive approach to validating axioms: this approach is attributed to classical philosophers and consists of assuming that axioms are propositions whose truth is immediately evident upon taking into account the terms they are based on. The latter focuses on clarifying the alternative approach, called the intersubjective approach of validating axioms (IAVA): this approach is attributed to a specific Islamic tradition, developed by Avicenna and Mullā Ṣadrā, and consists of assuming that axioms are propositions that cannot be rationally proved, denied, or doubted, without being already assumed. In this article, we present the intersubjective approach from a historical point of view.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

An Intersubjective Approach in the Validation of Axioms Considering Islamic Philosophy

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehran Rezaee 1
  • Eisa Mohammadinia 1
  • Mahdi Emami Jome 2
1 Assistant Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, University of Mazandaran, Babolsar, Iran
2 Professor, Department of Islamic Philosophy and Theology, Faculty of Theology and Education of Ahl al-Bayt (AS), University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran
چکیده [English]

Axioms are crucial to epistemic frameworks, as several schools of the history of science have recognized. The issue of the current research is that in the validation of axioms, what defects does the intuitive approach entail, and how can the intersubjective approach (based on the ideas of Islamic philosophers) be explained as an alternative, less-known system? The former is dedicated to clarifying and criticizing what is called the intuitive approach to validating axioms: this approach is attributed to classical philosophers and consists of assuming that axioms are propositions whose truth is immediately evident upon taking into account the terms they are based on. The latter focuses on clarifying the alternative approach, called the intersubjective approach of validating axioms (IAVA): this approach is attributed to a specific Islamic tradition, developed by Avicenna and Mullā Ṣadrā, and consists of assuming that axioms are propositions that cannot be rationally proved, denied, or doubted, without being already assumed. In this article, we present the intersubjective approach from a historical point of view.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • axioms
  • intersubjective
  • validation
  • intuitive
  • knowledge-by-presence
  • Mullā Ṣadrā

مراجع

Al-Marzban, B. (1996). Al-Tahsil. (M. Mutahhari, Ed.). University of Tehran Press. [In Arabic].
Al-Razi, F. D. (1991). Al-Mabahith al-mashriqiyyah fi ʿilm al-ilahiyyat wa-l-tabiʿiyyat (2nd ed.). Bidar Publications. [In Arabic].
Al-Razi, F. D. (1994). Sharh ʿuyun al-hikmah. Imam Sadeq (A.S.) Institute. [In Arabic].
Alston, W. P. (1989). Epistemic justification: essays in the theory of knowledge. Cornell University Press.
Al-Tanhavi, M. A. (1996). Kashshaf istilahat al-funun wa-l-ʿulum. Lebanon Publishers Library. [In Arabic].
Aristotle. (2002). Posterior analytics (2nd ed.). (J. Barnes, Trans. & Commentary). Oxford University Press.
Avicenna. (1984). Al-Isharat wa al-tanbihat [Remarks and admonitions]. (M. Zareie, Ed.). Bustan-i Kitab Publications. [In Arabic].
Avicenna. (1985). Al-Shifaʾ [The Book of healing]. Marashi Najafi Publications. [In Arabic].
Egler, M. (2020). Testing for the phenomenal: intuition, metacognition, and philosophical methodology. Mind & Language, 35, 48-66. https://doi.org/10.1111/mila.12229.
Halbach, V., & Graham, L. E. (2020). Axiomatic theories of truth. In E. N. Zalta (ed.), The Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved from: https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2020/entries/truth-axiomatic.
Hilli, H. (1992). Al-Jowhar al-nadid. Bidar Publications. [In Arabic].
Ingram, S. (2020.) Cooperative intuitionism. The Philosophical Quarterly, 70(281), 780-799. https://doi.org/10.1093/pq/pqaa011.
Kamiński, S. (2000). Axiom - powszechna encyklopedia filozofii. Polskie Towarzystwo Tomasza z Akwinu.
Kant, D., Sarikaya, D., & Centrone, S. (2019). Reflections on the foundations of mathematics: univalent foundations, set theory and general thoughts. Springer International Publishing.
Levine, M. (2012). Hume and the problem of miracles: a solution. Springer Netherlands.
Paulo, N. (2020). The unreliable intuitions objection against reflective equilibrium. Journal of Ethics, 24, 333–353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-020-09322-6.
Ramsey, W. (2019). Intuitions as evidence facilitators. Metaphilosophy, 50(1-2), 76-99. DOI:10.1111/meta.12351
Salbiya, J., & Saneie, M. (1987). Farhang-i falsafi. Hekmat Publications. [In Persian].
Samadi, D. (2007). Sharh nihayat al-hikmah. Qaim-i Aal Muhammad. [In Arabic].
Shahrzuri, S. D. (2004). Rasaʾil al-shajarat al-ilhaiyyah fi ʿulum al-haqiqah al-rabbaniyyah. (N. Habibi, Ed.). Iranian Institute of Philosophy. [In Arabic].
Shirazi, S.D. M. (Mulla Sadra). (1984). Mafatih al-ghayb. (M. Khajavi, Ed.). Institute of Cultural Studies. [In Arabic].
Shirazi, S.D. M. (Mulla Sadra). Al-Hashiyat ʿala al-shifaʾ. Bidar Publications. [In Arabic].
Shirazi, S.D. M. (Mulla Sadra). Al-Hikmat al-mutaʿaliyah fi-l asfar al-ʿaqliyyat al-arbaʿah [The transcendent philosophy of the four journeys of the intellect]. Mostafavi Library. [In Arabic].
Silva, P. (2013). Epistemically self-defeating arguments and skepticism about intuition. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal for Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 164(3), 579–589.  
Sobhani, J. (1993). Al-Ilahiyyat ʿala huda-l-kitab wa al-sunnah wa-l-ʿaql. Imam Sadeq (A.S.) Institute. [In Arabic].
Sobhani, J. (2006). Buhuth fi-l milal wa al-nihal. Imam Sadeq (A.S.) Institute. [In Arabic].
Tabatabaii, M. H. (2008a). Majmuʿa-yi rasaʾil. (H. Khosroshahi, Ed.). Bustan-i Kitab Publications. [In Arabic].
Tabatabaii, M. H. (2008b). Usul-i falsafe va ravish-i realism [The principles of philosophy and the method of realism]. (H. Khosroshahi, Ed.). Bustan-i Kitab Publications. [In Persian].
Tabatabaii, M. H. (n.d. (a)). Bidayat al-hikmah. Islamic Publishing Corporation, under the supervision of Jamiat al-Modaressin. [In Arabic].
Tabatabaii, M. H. (n.d. (b)). Niyahat al-hikmah. Islamic Publishing Corporation, under the supervision of Jamiat al-Modaressin. [In Arabic].
Tusi, N. D. (1996). Sharh al-isharat wa-l-tanbihat. Al-Balagh Publications. [In Arabic].
 
 
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
CAPTCHA Image
پژوهش‌های فلسفی -کلامی
دوره 27، شماره 1
فروردین 1404
صفحه 5-20

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار