Razieh Zeinaly; AmirAbbas Alizamani
Abstract
The main purpose of this article is to discuss of the Other and its relationship with Human person in Kierkegaard's view. Our chief question in this article is whether we know ourselves in the mirror of the other or if the other is a barrier and hindrance to our cognition of ourselves. In this paper, ...
Read More
The main purpose of this article is to discuss of the Other and its relationship with Human person in Kierkegaard's view. Our chief question in this article is whether we know ourselves in the mirror of the other or if the other is a barrier and hindrance to our cognition of ourselves. In this paper, first, we review the place of the other in the three stages of life and point out their differences with each other. Then, we continue to focus on the Ethical stage where is the main realm of the emergence of the "Other". After discussing the necessities and limitations of this stage, we review the topic of Love, focusing on the book "Works of love". Lastly, we ask this question that if the Other has the same place in Kierkegaard's eye just as concrete with all those flesh and blood and special traits as "Self" or Human person. In other words, what is the place of concrete Other in Kierkegaard's view? Does Kierkegaard ignore the concrete Other and bury its individuality by considering the Other as the mirror or model? Or does he promote the Other's status by making it into an ethical principle?
Alireza Farrokhi Balajadeh; AmirAbbas Alizamani
Volume 1, Issue 2 , October 2013, , Pages 105-128
Abstract
The English biologist and philosopher, Richard Dawkins, claims that the basic rules of physics in beginning of the universe and then evolution of vital complicated creatures and complexities, specifically human being, have been emerged by chance. He suggests two argument for his view; In his ‘simplicity ...
Read More
The English biologist and philosopher, Richard Dawkins, claims that the basic rules of physics in beginning of the universe and then evolution of vital complicated creatures and complexities, specifically human being, have been emerged by chance. He suggests two argument for his view; In his ‘simplicity argument’ argues that the basic rules of physics are simple, so it is actually more likely that the relatively simple lows of nature would be come into existence for no reason than that they would be designed by a God whose being would have to be more complex than they are. Thus, there is no God.In ‘cumulative process argument’, he argues that the emergence of complex form in the universe can be explain by natural selection alone, in a cumulative process of evolution, thus, it is ‘self-explanatory’.By contrast, Keith Ward as an English theist philosopher, with separating ‘inclusive simplicity’ of God from ‘exclusive simplicity’ that is in physical world, defends from "integrative and inclusive simplicity" of God. The existence of God integrates all elements, products of evolution and natural basic rules in a comprehensive system, thus, it is simplest explanation for the emergence of the universe and complexities on the earth, while Dawkins's materialistic view is not explanatory sufficiency. In fact, here we need ‘plenitude principle’, not ‘Occam's razor’. So ‘simplicity argument’ is in fact, ‘the fallacy of simplicity’. In this research, it is tried to defend from theistic explanation for evolutionary process.
