نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی دانشکده علوم و تحقیقات اسلامی دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی قزوین
2 گروه فلسفه و حکمت اسلامی دانشکده علوم و تحقیقات اسلامی دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی قزوین
3 گروه فلسفه دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی دانشگاه بین المللی امام خمینی قزوین
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Phronesis is comparable both in terms of its existence and essence in Heidegger’s and Mullā Sadrā’s thoughts. Heidegger believes in the superiority of phronesis over different aspects of Dasein's disclosedness and revelation such as episteme, techne and sophia, while following Aristotle’s viewpoint, Mullā Sadrā maintains that sophia could be human’s original contingency and mentions that sophia has superiority over all sciences even phronesis. On the other hand, although Mulla Sadra has openly spoken about the superiority of sophia, he has noted the unity of sophia and phronesis to achieve happiness. Moreover, these two philosophers’ opinions in issue, doer, end, and essence of phronesis are comparable. Following Aristotle, Mullā Sadrā believes that phronesis subject is human’s soul and its evolution, while Heidegger maintains that phronesis subject is from Dasein's existence. Such an attitude about subject, doer, end, and essence dominates phronesis, so that Heidegger considers phronesis as an aspect of Dasein's existence and Mulla Sadra considers it as an aspect of knowledge. However, both of these philosophers consider the end of phronesis as the achievement of human to the existence of the original, while they have given different definitions of the existence of the original based on their different bases. According to Mullā Sadrā, the existence of the original is remarkable due to the attention to the origin and resurrection, while Heidegger’s definition of the existence of the original is not directed toward the origin and resurrection, but instead focuses on issues such as self-discovery, attendance, and attention to death.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
13. Aristotle (2004), Nicomachean Ethics, Translated and Edited by Roger Crisp, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Blattner, William D. (1994), The Concept of Death in Being and Time, Man and World, 27(1), pp.49-70.
15. Brogan, Walter A. (2005), Heidegger and Aristotle: The Twofoldness of Being. Albany: State University of New York Press.
16. Haar, Michel (2003), Heidegger and the Essence of Man, Translated by William Mcneill, State University of New York Press.
17. Heidegger, Martin (1997), Plato’s Sophist, translated by Richard Rojcewicz and Andre Schuwer, Indiana University Press.
18. Hodge, Joanna (1995) Heidegger and Ethics., London and New York: Routledge.
19. Inwood, Michael (1999), A Heidegger Dictionary, Oxford: Blackwell publishers.
20. Long, Christopher P., 2004. The Ethics of Ontology: Rethinking an Aristotelian Legacy, Albany: State University of New York Press.
21. Olafson, Frederick A (1998), Heidegger and the Ground of Ethics: A Study of Mitsein, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22. Pettigrew, David and Raffoul, François (2002), Heidegger and Practical Philosophy (SUNY Series in Contemporary Continental Philosophy), State University of New York Press.
23. Zom, Diane, Heidegger’s Philosophy of Death.
)