Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 A Note on Fineâs Logic of Ground A Note on Fineâs Logic of Ground 1 8 23058 10.58209/jpt.2.1.1 FA D. Hosseini Department of Philosophy and Logic, Faculty of Humanities, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 In this note, I argue that Fine's pure logic of ground is nothing but the structural fragment of RM. This result raises a problem for discriminating between ground and relevantistic deduction in Fine's theory of ground. In this note, I argue that Fine's pure logic of ground is nothing but the structural fragment of RM. This result raises a problem for discriminating between ground and relevantistic deduction in Fine's theory of ground.

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23058_e626fbeea3ece898dfb0e5f651839d12.pdf

Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 Sports as Cultivation of Moral Virtues Sports as Cultivation of Moral Virtues 9 22 23059 10.58209/jpt.2.1.9 FA S.H. Eslami Ardakani Department of Religious Studies, Faculty of Religions, University of Religions and Denominations, Qom, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 While sports are often viewed from a health perspective or with an emphasis on economic aspects, in this article, the author tries to examine the ethical function of sports and show its dimensions. The existence of some common patterns and attitudes towards sports and the dominance of medical or commercial attitudes towards them has prevented attention to the fundamental ethical aspects of sports. While sports, especially aerobic and non-competitive, are tied to moral virtues. With this in mind, the author suggests that non-competitive endurance sports have three moral functions in the long run. First, it leads to self-understanding, self-awareness and self-knowledge, second, it leads to domination of the body, emotions and feelings, and third, it cultivates many moral virtues, including courage, order, tolerance of pain and wisdom. While sports are often viewed from a health perspective or with an emphasis on economic aspects, in this article, the author tries to examine the ethical function of sports and show its dimensions. The existence of some common patterns and attitudes towards sports and the dominance of medical or commercial attitudes towards them has prevented attention to the fundamental ethical aspects of sports. While sports, especially aerobic and non-competitive, are tied to moral virtues. With this in mind, the author suggests that non-competitive endurance sports have three moral functions in the long run. First, it leads to self-understanding, self-awareness and self-knowledge, second, it leads to domination of the body, emotions and feelings, and third, it cultivates many moral virtues, including courage, order, tolerance of pain and wisdom.

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23059_17a50e7931b2f0b0f58efcfae1d55b7d.pdf

Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 Problems of Religious Pluralism Concerning its Results Problems of Religious Pluralism Concerning its Results 23 35 23060 10.58209/jpt.2.1.23 FA Q. Qorbani Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran Q. Qorbani Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 Religious pluralism is a suitable successor for two approaches including religious exclusivism and inclusivism. More compatibility of religious pluralism with the modern world’s requirements is led to more welcoming to it. This approach, however, is unacceptable based on its foundations, principles and especially results. Some significant reasons that it can’t be acceptable are as follows: 1. It causes people to neglect other religions’ facts; 2. It does not pay attention to some vital differences within religious traditions; 3. Welcome to religious pluralism is led to vain the question and asking for religious truth and human beings' salvation; 4. Accepting it is caused by epistemic relativism and meaningless of seeking for religious truth; 5. Attaching it led to vain divine revelation and the philosophy of Prophethood; 6. Believing in religious pluralism is caused to destroy differences between intellectual and imitative religiosity; 7. Debasement religiosity and religious creeds are as welcoming to religious pluralism; 8. Accepting it leads to violation in divine attributes and insult to divine dignity of God; 9. Welcome to religious pluralism is caused by religious immorality, and 10. Destroying the religious identity of believers. Now, considering unacceptable results of religious pluralism, and some problems of religious exclusivism and inclusivism, I suggest the Gradual Approach to religious truth and salvation, in the sense that these divine graces have been distributed gradually and hierarchically and longitudinally in all religions, although the final salvation is depended on human being’s struggling and effort. Religious pluralism is a suitable successor for two approaches including religious exclusivism and inclusivism. More compatibility of religious pluralism with the modern world’s requirements is led to more welcoming to it. This approach, however, is unacceptable based on its foundations, principles and especially results. Some significant reasons that it can’t be acceptable are as follows: 1. It causes people to neglect other religions’ facts; 2. It does not pay attention to some vital differences within religious traditions; 3. Welcome to religious pluralism is led to vain the question and asking for religious truth and human beings' salvation; 4. Accepting it is caused by epistemic relativism and meaningless of seeking for religious truth; 5. Attaching it led to vain divine revelation and the philosophy of Prophethood; 6. Believing in religious pluralism is caused to destroy differences between intellectual and imitative religiosity; 7. Debasement religiosity and religious creeds are as welcoming to religious pluralism; 8. Accepting it leads to violation in divine attributes and insult to divine dignity of God; 9. Welcome to religious pluralism is caused by religious immorality, and 10. Destroying the religious identity of believers. Now, considering unacceptable results of religious pluralism, and some problems of religious exclusivism and inclusivism, I suggest the Gradual Approach to religious truth and salvation, in the sense that these divine graces have been distributed gradually and hierarchically and longitudinally in all religions, although the final salvation is depended on human being’s struggling and effort.

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23060_3d8fe53b02cd5791092fcb7cad6d117c.pdf

Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 Argument of Matter and Form on the Unity of the Reasoner and Reasonable and the Analysis of the Suspicion of Allegory and Confiscation Argument of Matter and Form on the Unity of the Reasoner and Reasonable and the Analysis of the Suspicion of Allegory and Confiscation 37 50 23061 10.58209/jpt.2.1.37 FA M.R. Ershadinia Department of Islamic Philosophy & Wisdom, Faculty of Teology, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 One of Hakim Sabzevari's arguments on the reasoner and reasonable union of "matter and form" is the argument, in which he considers the ontological principles of matter, form, and soul on the one hand, and on the other hand, he has put the view of Sadra's psychology as the basis for the completion of this argument. In order to distort all the arguments of Hakim Sabzevari, a published article accusing Hakim of "gross confusion" in recognizing the basic contents of philosophy. In this regard, in refuting the argument of matter and form, that article has turned to two major accusations. On the one hand, Hakim has been accused of using allegorical syllogism instead of argumentative syllogism, and on the other hand, it has condemned Hakim for the objection of confiscation. The analysis shows that this argument is based on total unity and that article has been distorted both in terms of reporting and in judgment, it has deviated to adopt illogical positions. One of Hakim Sabzevari's arguments on the reasoner and reasonable union of "matter and form" is the argument, in which he considers the ontological principles of matter, form, and soul on the one hand, and on the other hand, he has put the view of Sadra's psychology as the basis for the completion of this argument. In order to distort all the arguments of Hakim Sabzevari, a published article accusing Hakim of "gross confusion" in recognizing the basic contents of philosophy. In this regard, in refuting the argument of matter and form, that article has turned to two major accusations. On the one hand, Hakim has been accused of using allegorical syllogism instead of argumentative syllogism, and on the other hand, it has condemned Hakim for the objection of confiscation. The analysis shows that this argument is based on total unity and that article has been distorted both in terms of reporting and in judgment, it has deviated to adopt illogical positions.

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23061_186b9c4e15d0dfece1765c0a5cfb8e33.pdf

Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 Philosophical Analysis of Blowing the Spirit (Rooá¸¥) into the Body in the View of Al-Hikma Al-Mutaâaliya Philosophical Analysis of Blowing the Spirit (Rooá¸¥) into the Body in the View of Al-Hikma Al-Mutaâaliya 51 59 23062 10.58209/jpt.2.1.51 FA H. Moradi Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Humanities, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran H. Moradi Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Humanities, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran F. Forouzan Kia Department of Islamic Philosophy and Wisdom, Faculty of Humanities, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 The subject of this article is the relationship between the soul and the body and its problem is the conflict between the philosophical doctrine of "the physical occurrence of the soul (Nafs)" and the Quranic doctrine of "blowing the spirit (Rooḥ) in the body". Solving this conflict is our goal and its method is first to describe both doctrines in their context and then to analyze the conflict and resolve it based on the principles of transcendent wisdom. Blowing the spirit in the body means degrading and connecting the spirit to the body to plan and control it. The physical occurrence of a partial soul for a body means the occurrence of a rational and general tactical attention of the soul to this imaginal or corporeal body. It seems that the spirit is the intellectual level of the soul and the blowing of the spirit is the physical occurrence of the soul. Therefore, the spirit or the rational soul is not a creature with an occurrence, but something with its occurrence as belonging to a body. Blowing the spirit into the body or the physical occurrence of the soul means its control relationship with the body, not it means being at the level of the corporeal body. The subject of this article is the relationship between the soul and the body and its problem is the conflict between the philosophical doctrine of "the physical occurrence of the soul (Nafs)" and the Quranic doctrine of "blowing the spirit (Rooḥ) in the body". Solving this conflict is our goal and its method is first to describe both doctrines in their context and then to analyze the conflict and resolve it based on the principles of transcendent wisdom. Blowing the spirit in the body means degrading and connecting the spirit to the body to plan and control it. The physical occurrence of a partial soul for a body means the occurrence of a rational and general tactical attention of the soul to this imaginal or corporeal body. It seems that the spirit is the intellectual level of the soul and the blowing of the spirit is the physical occurrence of the soul. Therefore, the spirit or the rational soul is not a creature with an occurrence, but something with its occurrence as belonging to a body. Blowing the spirit into the body or the physical occurrence of the soul means its control relationship with the body, not it means being at the level of the corporeal body.

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23062_6706f0da72316a555818858ae81eb84e.pdf

Tarbiat Modares University (TMU) Philosophical Thought 1973-2873 2 1 2025 07 14 Analysis of Rorty's Point of View Regarding the Separation of the Private Sphere from the Public Sphere Analysis of Rorty's Point of View Regarding the Separation of the Private Sphere from the Public Sphere 61 79 23063 10.58209/jpt.2.1.61 FA N. Soleimani Department of Philosophy, Faculty Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran A. Fath Taheri Department of Philosophy, Faculty Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran Sh. Peyk Herfeh Department of Philosophy, Faculty Literature and Humanities, Imam Khomeini International University, Qazvin, Iran Journal Article 2025 07 14 Challenging the entire western philosophical tradition, which in his opinion has caused useless theoretical dualisms throughout the history of philosophy, Rorty wants to attempt to deconstruct and eliminate these dualisms in the context of "redemptive literary culture". By creating a dividing line between the private and public spheres, Rorty wants to specify the contribution and involvement of philosophers in presenting theoretical and philosophical views and to say that the political sphere does not need to acquire foundations from the individual criteria of the private sphere. It is as if Rorty wants to prevent the philosopher's ambitions and interference with theorizing by reducing philosophy to literature. In fact, he believes in the distinction between private and public spheres or politics, the philosopher's tool is imagination and his intellectual sphere is literary culture and his place is the private sphere. Assuming the acceptance of pragmatic criteria, doesn't this division of a person in two completely different areas make him a dual personality? Can this intellectual stance be reasonable and acceptable? Challenging the entire western philosophical tradition, which in his opinion has caused useless theoretical dualisms throughout the history of philosophy, Rorty wants to attempt to deconstruct and eliminate these dualisms in the context of "redemptive literary culture". By creating a dividing line between the private and public spheres, Rorty wants to specify the contribution and involvement of philosophers in presenting theoretical and philosophical views and to say that the political sphere does not need to acquire foundations from the individual criteria of the private sphere. It is as if Rorty wants to prevent the philosopher's ambitions and interference with theorizing by reducing philosophy to literature. In fact, he believes in the distinction between private and public spheres or politics, the philosopher's tool is imagination and his intellectual sphere is literary culture and his place is the private sphere. Assuming the acceptance of pragmatic criteria, doesn't this division of a person in two completely different areas make him a dual personality? Can this intellectual stance be reasonable and acceptable?

https://jpt.modares.ac.ir/article_23063_8b90da18aa2fee81ae89d07845fcba11.pdf