درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The connection between the soul and the body has always been acknowledged by philosophers, as seeing, hearing, remembering, recalling, thinking, experiencing joy and sadness, and enjoying, while being psychological phenomena, are deeply influenced by the body. Without the nervous, glandular, and muscular effects, these psychological events cannot occur. Similarly, psychological states have a significant impact on the body and human organism, a point often highlighted by psychologists and philosophers. This study, using a descriptive-analytical and comparative method, aims to examine Plato's and Mullā Ṣadrā's views on the soul and its relationship with the body. Based on the findings, Plato makes a distinction between the soul and the body, but believes in their reciprocal influence on one another. He identifies the soul with the essence of humanity and views the body as a foreign entity after death. Mullā Ṣadrā, however, sees the relationship between the soul and the body as a union, where each represents a stage in the existence of a single reality called "human." He believes that the soul and the body mutually affect each other, and in its initial emergence, the soul is corporeal, later reaching the state of abstraction through substantial motion. The soul's attachment to the body is intrinsic, and the soul remains a soul only while connected to the body. Overall, this study shows that although Mullā Ṣadrā has been influenced by Plato in some aspects, he also presents his unique perspectives in this area.

With a comparative textual approach, the present study tries to show how the previous termini technici and concepts have been redefined in Manichaeism, which was able to create celestial angels from certain earthly apostles, prophets, and sages, and why the function of any of the Manichaean figures is not equivalent to the function of their counterparts in other religions. After describing and determining the nature and function of the famous Semitic prophets Jacob and Seth, and the Buddhist sage Arahant, this study tries to find a satisfactory answer to why the Manichaeans considered these originally pre-Manichaean characters as angels. For the first time, the present survey paves the way for the hypothesis and logical speculation that syṭ ʻSeth the angelʼ is the angelic form of šytyl ʻSeth the prophet/ apostleʼ and ʾhryndws ʻArhant the angelʼ is the angelic form of (ʾ)rhnd/t ʻArhant the sageʼ and ultimately proves that the Manichaeans used each of these in two different contexts to refer to the two concepts ʻmessenger, prophet, sageʼ and ʻangelʼ simultaneously, which are two sides of the same coin.

From a philosophical standpoint, the fourth Islamic century (tenth-eleventh Christian centuries) stands out as the most remarkable and brilliant period among the centuries of the Islamic calendar. It exemplifies the essence of Islamic civilization, characterized by freedom, tolerance, morality, humanism, and rationality. During this period, Iran and Iraq were governed by the Sunni Abbasid Caliphate and Shiite Persian Buyid Emirate. One characteristic of this significant period, reminiscent of the Renaissance (centuries before the European Renaissance), is its cultural pluralism and religious tolerance. A notable example that epitomizes this remarkable tolerance can be found in the philosophical circles of Iran and Iraq during the tenth century. These circles brought together thinkers from diverse nations and religions. At times, the role of the master and moderator was assumed by Muslim figures like al-Sijistani (d. 1001 AD), while in other instances, Christian philosophers such as Yahya (Yuhanna/John) ibn ʿAdi (893-974 AD) took on the responsibility of moderating these intellectual gatherings. Yahya ibn ʿAdi had two groups of disciples: one comprised of Muslims, including al-Sijistani and Ibn Miskawayh, and the other consisting of Christians such as Ibn Samh, Nazif al-Rumi, and ʿIsa ibn Zurʿa. This study employs the method of intellectual historiography as applied to that age, specifically al-Tawhidi to explore the characteristics of intellectual exchange and the relationship between Muslim and Christian scholars.

The extensive training data of ChatGPT has facilitated theorizing in the field of Translation Studies, particularly during the cultural turn. Following this theorizing, a standardization framework was proposed. This study employed a qualitative and interdisciplinary approach, utilizing a descriptive method to interpret the data. The validated questions were based on the works of theorists associated with the cultural turn. Two scholars participated in structured and semi-structured interviews, employing a three-point Likert scale to capture their opinions on the proposed theory. Data analysis focused on the accuracy of ChatGPT-4’s responses in relation to the scholars’ opinions and references. The findings associated with the Likert scale were linked to task-oriented benchmarks, including factual/contextual understanding, coherence, and resolution of ambiguity. The results indicated a 29.3% weakness in ChatGPT-4’s data analysis. The resolution of ambiguity resulted in a total of neutral responses at 44.8%. Scholars unanimously endorsed the cultural interaction theory, demonstrating a 100% capacity for theorizing by ChatGPT-4. In terms of coherence and summarization, the data suggested a stronger correlation with prompt engineering. The potential for theorizing concerning existing theory was found to be 77.7%, while the standard of theorizing by ChatGPT-4 was assessed at 68.9%. Surah Al-Fatiha was selected to exemplify cultural translation according to CIT, illustrating the theory’s effectiveness in translating cultural-ideological texts. A comparison of ChatGPT-4’s translations with those of six Quranic translators underscored its synthesizing abilities, with the incorporation of cultural interaction theory into prompts significantly enhancing its translation skills.

Epistemologists have widely accepted that truth, justification, and belief are necessary conditions for knowledge. This article challenges the necessity of the two components, “belief” and “justification”, in the definition of knowledge. It argues that belief is distinct from knowledge; belief is an act of will, whereas knowledge is acquired automatically. One may possess knowledge without being actively willing to believe it, and conversely, one may will to believe something without actually knowing it. Additionally, justification should be seen as a method of validating knowledge, not a fundamental part of its definition. Therefore, knowledge without justification remains knowledge, even though its truth cannot be proven. Building on this perspective, the proposed definition of knowledge shifts to “awareness or recognition of facts.” According to this definition, the Gettier problem and the lottery paradox find alternative solutions.