In this paper, I explore a question about deductive reasoning: why am I in a position to immediately infer some deductive consequences of what I know, but not others? I show why the question cannot be answered in the most natural ways of answering it, in particular in Descartes’s way of answering it. I then go on to introduce a new approach to answering the question, an approach inspired by Hume’s view of inductive reasoning.

The Prophet, whom Allah sent the whole universe and humanity as mercy, produced not only many judicial rules and practices regarding the relations of a person with Allah and other people in Islam but also uttered sentences about the explanation of holy book, Qur’an, and about how this book can be put into practice. The issue whether and how much these sentences of the prophet (hadith) and acts of the prophet (Sunnah) are binding have been discussed by both hadith methodologists (...) and fiqh methodologists; accordingly, a great many studies were produced. In hadith methodology, the discussions about Sunnah of the Prophet had their reflections in the studies of fiqh methodology; and especially Hanafi jurists propounded considerations about this issue. Hussein b. Ali al-Saymerî (d. 436/1045) one of these jurists, is the student of Muhammad b. Mûsa al-Khwârizmî (d. 403/1012), who is the student of Abû Bakr al-Jassâs (d. 370/980), who is an authority in Hanafi methodology. al-Saymerî, who adopted the method of al-Jassâs in fiqh methodology, systematically categorized several fundamental issues which were discussed and were related to fiqh methodology during his time; and he defended the views of Hanafi scholars about these issues primarily against Shâfiʿîs and several fiqh and kalam schools. While presenting the views and evidences of Hanafis, al-Saymerî initially applied for the views of founder imams of Hanafi sect such as Abû Hanîfa, Abû Yusuf and Muhammad al-Shaybânî; following these scholars, he greatly benefited from Hanafi scholars from Iraq region, such as Abu’l-Hasan al-Karkhî (d. 340/952) and his student, Abu Bakr al-Râzî al-Jassâs. When the relevant parts of his study is analysed, it is seen that the effect of al-Jassâs is especially noticeable. In this article, we will study the binding issue of the Sunnah of the Prophet within the context of al-Saymerî’s study, which has extant and is called Mesâilu’l-hilâf fi usûli’l-fiqh. We consider that the different attitude of al-Saymerî about the Sunnah of the Prophet from the other methodologists and hadith scholars and the underlying reasons of these differences are worth to be investigated and emphasized. (shrink)

Çalışmada İslam tefsir geleneğinin erken dönem müfessirlerinden biri olan Mâtürîdî’nin (ö.333/944) İbn Abbas (ö. 68/687-688) rivayetlerine yaklaşımı incelenmektedir. Bilindiği üzere onun kaleme aldığı Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an, dirayet ağırlıklıdır. Ancak eserdeki dirayet içerikli yorumları rivayetten yoksun değildir. Zira tefsirinde az da olsa Hz. Peygambere isnad edilen rivayetlere, bolca sahabe ve tabiine ait rivayetlere rastlanır. Sahabe nesli içerisinde tefsirde ilk sırada yer alan İbn Abbas, Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da da rivayet sayısı bakımından ilk sırayı korumaktadır. Tespitimize göre bu eserde İbn Abbas’a ait 579 rivayet vardır. Bu sayıyla (...) İbn Abbas Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da sahabe arasında ilk sırada yer almaktadır. Bu eserde İbn Abbas’ın önemi aslında rivayet bakımından ilk sırada yer almasıyla ilgili değildir. Mâtürîdî’ye göre genelde sahabenin, özelde İbn Abbas’ın tefsirde ayrı bir önemi vardır. Zira o, tefsiri sahabeye özgü bir alan olarak görmektedir. Bilindiği üzere Mâtürîdî, tefsir te’vil ayrımı yapmakta, tefsirin sahabeye te’vilin ise alimlere ait olduğunu söylemektedir. Onun bu yaklaşımı çalışmada Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’daki İbn Abbas’a ait 579 rivayet üzerinden incelenmektedir. Çalışma iki kısımdan oluşmaktadır. İlk kısımda Mâtürîdî tefsirindeki İbn Abbas rivayetleri biçim ve içerik açısından tanıtılmaktadır. Rivayetlerin uzun veya kısa oluşu, ayet içerip içermemesi, İbn Abbas’ın senedde her zaman sözün sahibi değil, Hz. Peygamberin sözünü aktaran biri olarak yer alması ona ait rivayetlerin biçimsel yönü olarak görülebilir. Rivayetlerin Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’daki görünümü de bu bağlamda ele alınabilir. Bu hususta önce Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas rivayetleri için hem te’vil hem tefsir ifadesini kullandığını belirtmeliyiz. O tefsirinin genelinde sadece sözü söyleyenin ismini zikrederek senedin geriye kalan kısmını hazfettiği için tefsirinde senedin yer alış biçimi üzerinde durma imkânı yoktur. Rivayetin metin kısmını ise Mâtürîdî bazen olduğu gibi alıntılamakta bazen özetlemekte bazen de başkasına ait sözü zikrettikten sonra İbn Abbas’a ait sözün, aktardığı söze benzediğini söylemekle yetinmektedir. Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’da İbn Abbas’a ait rivayetlerin içeriğine gelince rivayetler, hurûf-ı mukattaa, sebeb-i nüzul, kıraat, nesh gibi Kur’an ilimleri, kelime açıklamaları, ayet yorumları şeklinde sınıflandırılabilir. O ayetin bazen bir kesitini bazen bütününü yorumlamakta, yorumlarını nüzul dönemi veya sonrası olaylar ile ilişkilendirebilmektedir. Çalışmanın ilk kısmı bu çerçevededir. İkinci kısımda ise Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas rivayetlerini ayeti yorumlamada kullanışı ele alınmaktadır. Te’vîlâtü’l-Kur’an’a bu açıdan bakıldığında Mâtürîdî’nin farklı tavırlar sergilediği rahatlıkla görülebilir. Zira o, bir âyetin yorumu için İbn Abbas’ın görüşünü bazen benimsemekte, kendi görüşüne dayanak etmekte, bazen başka rivayet zikretmeksizin onun rivayetiyle yetinmekte, bazen onun rivayetini diğer rivayetler içerisine almakta ancak bunlara ilişkin bir değerlendirme yapmamaktadır. Bunun yanı sıra o bazen İbn Abbas tefsirini tercih etmemekte hatta eleştirmektedir. Mâtürîdî’nin İbn Abbas’ın yaptığı yorumu gereksiz gördüğü yerler de bulunmaktadır. (shrink)

ABSTRACTPopular culture has many examples of evil characters having vertically pupilled eyes. Humans have a long evolutionary history of rivalry with snakes and their visual systems were evolved to rapidly detect snakes and snake-related cues. Considering such evolutionary background, we hypothesised that humans would perceive vertical pupils, which are characteristics of ambush predators including some of the snakes, as threatening. In seven studies conducted on samples from American and Turkish samples, we found that vertical pupils are perceived as more threatening (...) on both explicit and implicit level and they are associated with physical, rather than social, threat. Findings provided partial support regarding our hypothesis about the relevance of snake detection processes: Snake phobia, and not spider phobia, was found to be related to perceiving vertical pupils as threatening, however an experimental manipulation of saliency of snakes re... (shrink)

The ijtihâd issues are among important problems of uṣûl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory). Given al-beyân el-ijtihâd in the meaning of interpreting naṣṣ (text) and al-qiyâs el-jtihâd in the meaning of reaching a verdict of a new issue which is not determined by naṣṣ, it is possible to say that mujtahid (a jurist) is actively in the ijtihâd activity. Thus, the ijtihâd issues has been discussed in uṣûl al-fiqh since early period. The fact that Shâfi‘î refers to ijtihâd issues in his (...) works which have arrived the present day shows that there is a rich accumulation of knowledge about ijtihâd discussions in early period. After Shâfi‘î, the issues were discussed by scholars of Islamic legal theory. Among the Shâfi‘î (uṣûl al-fiqh) works which have arrived the present day, the first work that deals with ijtihâd issues in an ordered, systematic and detailed way is the work of al-Mâwerdî’s el-Ḥâvi’l-Kebîr. In this study, al-Mâwerdî discusses many issues in uṣûl al-fiqh, especially the definition of ijtihâd, its types, the relation between ijtihad and qıyâs, the qualities of mujtahid, iṣâbet (right) and ḫaṭâ’ (fault) in ijtihâd and the provision of ijtihâd. The debates on the ijtihâd issues in Shâfi‘î uṣûl al-fiqh before al-Mâverdî are important our subject. al-Mâwerdî’s view of uṣûl has a close relationship with the accumulation of uṣûl developed prior to him. al-Mâwerdî mentions the views of many scholars who have contributed the accumulation of the sect in the ijtihad issues, especially Shâfi‘î. He refers to the views of scholars from sects other than Shâfi‘î in the issues he discussed. From this point of view, it is certain that to determine the ijtihâd issues in al-Mâwerdî’s el-Ḥâvi’l-Kebîr will also help us to determine the framework and course of debates on ijtihâd in the classical period. (shrink)

Ehrenmord ist eine nicht selten vorkommende Tat in der Turkei. Mit fortgesetzter Wanderung in die großen Städte der Türkei und ins Ausland, wird dieses Phänomen auch in andere Regionen getragen. Daher setzt sich auch die Öffentlichkeit in zunehmenden Maße mit dieser Thematik auseinander. In diesem Artikel wird versucht, den Ehrenmord unter philosophischen Gesichtspunkten zu erklären.Hierzu werden Gedanken Engels, Butlers, Foucaults, Levi Strauss’ und auch weitere bedeutende Forschungsarbeiten zum Thema Selbstmord hinzugezogen.

Der Rassimus-Diskurs hat sich auf die fortschrittlichen kapitalistischen Länder konzentriert. Da der Rassimus kein westliches Phänomen ist, sondern eine aus der kapitalistischen Produktionsweise hervorgehende Idologie, sollte die Rassismus-Diskussion auch in Ländern, in denen sich die kapitalistische Produktionsweise erst spät etablierte, untersucht werden. Untersuchungen zu Rassismus in der Türkei zeigen, dass der Rassismus in der Türkei besonderheit aufzeigt, die nicht mit denen der westlichen Länder vergleichbar sind. Deswegen werde ich in meinem Referat den Rassismus in der Türkei vor dem Hintergrund einer (...) Auseinandersetzung mit Albert Memmi, Robert Miles, Immanuel Wallerstein, Etienne Balibar, etc. erlaütern. (shrink)

White, Christensen, and Feldman have recently endorsed uniqueness, the thesis that given the same total evidence, two rational subjects cannot hold different views. Kelly, Schoenfield, and Meacham argue that White and others have at best only supported the weaker, merely intrapersonal view that, given the total evidence, there are no two views which a single rational agent could take. Here, we give a new argument for uniqueness, an argument with deliberate focus on the interpersonal element of the thesis. Our argument (...) is that the best explanation of the value of promoting rationality is an explanation that entails uniqueness. (shrink)

Jacques Lacan was a notoriously difficult and idiosyncratic thinker. But is there any value in his hermetically difficult style? By highlighting certain crucial elements of his practice, I show how Lacan enlists the notion of difficulty to press home that he did not want his readers to understand directly. Instead, as Foucault and Althusser explain so well, Lacan wished for his readers and auditors to discover themselves as subjects of desire through reading him. Indeed, in miming the language of the (...) unconscious, Lacan believed he could throw into sharp relief the notion of the unconscious itself and, paradoxically, better express himself. This temporary detour through misunderstanding indicates the programmatic value of difficulty itself. By commenting on the comedic aspect of Lacan's difficult literary dandyism, I also seek to playfully remind the reader that Lacan was a master of comedy and irony and that it is only by adopting a comparative literary approach to his work that we can appreciate how his theory of misunderstanding is at the heart of his conceptualization of madness and psychosis, allowing us to see how, for Lacan, the subject is ontologically sick. (shrink)

In this paper, we investigate how the interactions of a robot with its environment can be used to create concepts that are typically represented by verbs in language. Towards this end, we utilize the notion of affordances to argue that verbs typically refer to the generation of a specific type of effect rather than a specific type of action. Then, we show how a robot can form these concepts through interactions with the environment and how humans can use these concepts (...) to ease their communication with the robots. We demonstrate that iCub, a humanoid robot, can use the concepts, which it has developed, to to understand what a human performs, perform multi-step planning for reaching a goal state as well as to specify a goal to the robot using symbolic descriptions. (shrink)

This article focuses on recent discussions about holobionts and evolutionary individuality to evaluate the merits of integrative pluralism. I argue that integrative pluralism is the wrong approach to take when it comes to holobiont research because integrative pluralism is not liberal enough to accommodate both single-species and multispecies individuals. I conclude by suggesting two points. First, a pluralistic view helps us better understand holobiont research. Second, the case of holobionts helps us develop a better account of scientific pluralism.

Whereas Bayesians have proposed norms such as probabilism, which requires immediate and permanent certainty in all logical truths, I propose a framework on which credences, including credences in logical truths, are rational because they are based on reasoning that follows plausible rules for the adoption of credences. I argue that my proposed framework has many virtues. In particular, it resolves the problem of logical omniscience.

This paper begins by raising a puzzle about what function our use of the word ‘rational’ could serve. To solve the puzzle, I introduce a view I call Epistemic Communism: we use epistemic evaluations to promote coordination among our basic belief-forming rules, and the function of this is to make the acquisition of knowledge by testimony more efficient.

After briefly expositing some fundamental issues in current debates about apriority, I go on to critically examine meaning-based explanations of how we acquire apriori justification.

Rationalism, my target, says that in order to have perceptual knowledge, such as that your hand is making a fist, you must “antecedently” (or “independently”) know that skeptical scenarios don’t obtain, such as the skeptical scenario that you are in the Matrix. I motivate the specific form of Rationalism shared by, among others, White (Philos Stud 131:525–557, 2006) and Wright (Proc Aristot Soc Suppl Vol 78:167–212, 2004), which credits us with warrant to believe (or “accept”, in Wright’s terms) that our (...) senses are reliably veridical, where that warrant is one we enjoy by default, that is, without relying on any evidence or engaging in any positive argument. The problem with this form of Rationalism is that, even if you have default knowledge that your senses are reliable, this is not adequate to rule out every kind of skeptical scenario. The problem is created by one-off skeptical scenarios, scenarios that involve a highly reliable perceiver who, by a pure fluke, has a one-off, non-veridical experience. I claim you cannot infer that your present perceptual experience is veridical just on the basis of knowledge of your general reliability. More generally, if you infer that the present F is G, just on the basis of your knowledge that most Fs are Gs, this is what I call statistical inference, and, as I argue, statistical inference by itself does not generate knowledge. I defend this view of statistical inference against objections, including the objection that radical skepticism about our ordinary inductive knowledge will follow unless statistical inference generates knowledge. (shrink)

In section 1, I develop epistemic communism, my view of the function of epistemically evaluative terms such as ‘rational’. The function is to support the coordination of our belief-forming rules, which in turn supports the reliable acquisition of beliefs through testimony. This view is motivated by the existence of valid inferences that we hesitate to call rational. I defend the view against the worry that it fails to account for a function of evaluations within first-personal deliberation. In the rest of (...) the paper, I then argue, on the basis of epistemic communism, for a view about rationality itself. I set up the argument in section 2 by saying what a theory of rational deduction is supposed to do. I claim that such a theory would provide a necessary, sufficient, and explanatorily unifying condition for being a rational rule for inferring deductive consequences. I argue in section 3 that, given epistemic communism and the conventionality that it entails, there is no such theory. Nothing explains why certain rules for deductive reasoning are rational. (shrink)

In recent years, commentators have begun to re-examine the proximity of Frantz Fanon's and Jacques Lacan's work — a proximity which has traditionally been underappreciated. This article adds to these voices, demonstrating the reciprocal intellectual relationship between these two figures. It develops five interrelated arguments to chart this proximity. First, it emphasizes Lacan's and Fanon's connections through their ontological perspectives on madness. Second, it arbitrates the two theorists’ criticisms of the limits of Western psychoanalysis. Third, it shows the importance placed (...) by both on social structures in determining mental illnesses. Next, it demonstrates the centrality of their common understanding of psychosis. Finally, it argues that Lacan's argument in The Sinthome concerning the colonizer's power is inherited from Fanon's Black Skin, White Masks — itself influenced by Lacan's early theory of language. The article does not attempt to cast Fanon as an apprentice Lacanian but rather to argue that reciprocity helped shape both oeuvres. (shrink)

A Boltzmann Brain, haphazardly formed through the unlikely but still possible random assembly of physical particles, is a conscious brain having experiences just like an ordinary person. The skeptical possibility of being a Boltzmann Brain is an especially gripping one: scientific evidence suggests our actual universe’s full history may ultimately contain countless short-lived Boltzmann Brains with experiences just like yours or mine. I propose a solution to the skeptical challenge posed by these countless actual Boltzmann Brains. My key idea is (...) roughly this: the skeptical argument that you’re one of the Boltzmann Brains requires you to make a statistical inference, but the Principle of Total Evidence blocks us from making the inference. I discuss how my solution contrasts with a recent suggestion, made by Sean Carroll and David Chalmers, for how to address the skeptical challenge posed by Boltzmann Brains. And I discuss how my solution handles certain relevant concerns about what to do when we have higher-order evidence indicating that our first-order evidence is misleading. (shrink)

This paper looks at three ways of addressing probabilism’s implausible requirement of logical omniscience. The first and most common strategy says it’s okay to require an ideally rational person to be logically omniscient. I argue that this view is indefensible on any interpretation of ‘ideally rational’. The second strategy says probabilism should be formulated not in terms of logically possible worlds but in terms of doxastically possible worlds, ways you think the world might be. I argue that, on the interpretation (...) of this approach that lifts the requirement of certainty in all logical truths, the view becomes vacuous, issuing no requirements on rational believers at all. Finally, I develop and endorse a new solution to the problem. This view proposes dynamic norms for reasoning with credences. The solution is based on an old proposal of Ian Hacking’s that says you’re required to be sensitive to logical facts only when you know they are logical facts. (shrink)

I object to Markos Valaris’s thesis that reasoning requires a belief that your conclusion follows from your premisses. My counter-examples highlight the important but neglected role of suppositional reasoning in the basis of so much of what we know.

The main question of this paper is: how do we manage to know what our own degrees of belief are? Section 1 briefly reviews and criticizes the traditional functionalist view, a view notably associated with David Lewis and sometimes called the theory-theory. I use this criticism to motivate the approach I want to promote. Section 2, the bulk of the paper, examines and begins to develop the view that we have a special kind of introspective access to our degrees of (...) belief. I give an initial assessment of the view by examining its compatibility with leading theories of introspection. And I identify a challenge for the view, and explain why I'm optimistic that the view can overcome it. (shrink)

What accounts for how we know that certain rules of reasoning, such as reasoning by Modus Ponens, are valid? If our knowledge of validity must be based on some reasoning, then we seem to be committed to the legitimacy of rule-circular arguments for validity. This paper raises a new difficulty for the rule-circular account of our knowledge of validity. The source of the problem is that, contrary to traditional wisdom, a universal generalization cannot be inferred just on the basis of (...) reasoning about an arbitrary object. I argue in favor of a more sophisticated constraint on reasoning by universal generalization, one which undermines a rule-circular account of our knowledge of validity. (shrink)

True beliefs and truth-preserving inferences are, in some sense, good beliefs and good inferences. When an inference is valid though, it is not merely truth-preserving, but truth-preserving in all cases. This motivates my question: I consider a Modus Ponens inference, and I ask what its validity in particular contributes to the explanation of why the inference is, in any sense, a good inference. I consider the question under three different definitions of ‘case’, and hence of ‘validity’: the orthodox definition given (...) in terms of interpretations or models, a metaphysical definition given in terms of possible worlds, and a substitutional definition defended by Quine. I argue that the orthodox notion is poorly suited to explain what's good about a Modus Ponens inference. I argue that there is something good that is explained by a certain kind of truth across possible worlds, but the explanation is not provided by metaphysical validity in particular; nothing of value is explained by truth across all possible worlds. Finally, I argue that the substitutional notion of validity allows us to correctly explain what is good about a valid inference. (shrink)

In this study, the term of ‘blessing’, which is a basic Qurʾānic concept, is analyzed. In this regard, the study focuses on the definition of ‘blessing’, its different meanings in the various contexts, synonyms and antonyms and its leading individuals to the dimensions of faith, worship and morality. These subject matters are studied by taking into consideration of the meanings of ‘blessing’ in the Qurʾān and commentators’ explanations about the word. The expression of the ‘blessing’ in the Qurʾān indicates that (...) the word has an extensive and constructive meaning. The fact that having an extensive meaning demonstrates that the points the word encompasses can be determined to some extent. It is exemplified in the Qurʾān what can be regarded as ‘blessing’. Furthermore, the commentators determine various meanings to the word by considering the contexts in which the word is used. It is understood that the aim of using the word in the Qurʾān is to lead the individuals to the dimensions of the faith, worship and morality. It is possible for people to be grateful to God by making this aim more visible in their lives. -/- SUMMARY The word blessing mentioned in the Qurʾān has a general meaning. This type of words contains more than one subject inside them. The fact that the blessing contains more than one subject may be seen in the Qurʾānic attributions of it as well as seen in its dictionary and term meaning. Also, the way of explaining a part of subjects, which are in its content, points out this aspect. Thus, in the Qurʾān, the new ones are being added in another place to things referred as blessing in one place. Also, sometimes the blessings with entirely different contents are included. For example, the blessing of God upon Muslims is His support on a battle. In another place rendering them as brothers is a blessing. This is also an example that blessing was partially explained in the Qurʾān. The explanation of the word is sometimes in the same context and sometimes in different contexts. For example, in the verse 47 of the Surah al-Baqara, the blessing given to Jews in the time of Moses is mentioned. Starting from the next verse, between the verses 49-61, these blessings are aligned. Moreover, the blessing that was given to prophets, martyrs and righteous (siddiq) can be an example for the explanation of blessing in the different verses of the Qurʾān. These people who have been given blessing are mentioned side by side in the verse 69 of al-Nisā’. However, it is not explained that what the blessing given to them is. Each blessing mentioned is explained in different places in the Qurʾān. While some part of blessing is determined by the Qurʾān itself, the other part is attempted to be determined by commentators. Given that the explanations in the Qurʾān and commentaries, the subjects that affected by blessing can be divided into two as tangible and intangible blessings. The resources offered for humans to maintain their lives, emancipation a slave, the wind that helps the ship to move forward and Muhammad himself as a prophet are the tangible ones. Faith, miracle, mercy, reward, retrieving safety, the place where all kind of resources and ease, peace and happiness exist (Heaven) can be commentated as intangible blessings. The subjects included in the concept of blessing in the Qurʾān are changing according to the context. The blessing from God upon believers is “the faith granted by God on the earth” in one place, and “the Heaven bestowed in the afterlife” in another place. When determining the close and opposite meanings of the word, it should not be ignored this aspect of the blessing. In other words, it changes according to the context. For example, if the content of blessing is “the resource presented to human beings”, the close meaning of it in the Qurʾān is “compassion”, the opposite meaning of it is “harm”. However, if the thing that fell within blessing is “reward”, the close meaning will be “good deed”, opposite meaning will be “torment”. The blessing changes according to the addressed person as well. It is the all kind of resource that God presents to humans if the human kind is in question. If it is for a believer, it means moral support and every kind of reward as well as the resources offered. However, if it is relevant to a prophet, the prior meaning is prophethood as well as the meanings above. The expression of blessing in the Qurʾān helps us to have more opinion about it. For example, blessing has a positive meaning according to the Qurʾān. The word’s positive aspect is emphasized by comparing things that cannot be blessing to negative person types. The perception of blessing of Pharaoh and a hypocrite that is expressed in the Qurʾān can be evaluated in this content. According to the Qurʾān, the blessing they qualify is not in the context of blessing. Another aspect that draws attention in the expression of blessing in the Qurʾān is the relationship between the blessing giver and receiver. This relationship between God and servants takes place both in the earth and the afterlife. First, God has presented blessing to humans by considering that he/she is worth creating. Human beings show ingratitude or gratitude for being created and all other blessings. Here, the blessing is a test tool for humans. God responds according to the behaviors of human beings in test. He gives this response either only in the afterlife or both in the afterlife and the earth. If the humans respond the blessing with gratitude, God puts him/her to the heaven full of blessings in the afterlife. The blessing here is the result of the test on the earth. So the purpose of expression of blessing in the Qurʾān is to direct the humans to exhibit the behavior with that God is pleased, gain His contentment, deserve His heaven full of blessings. This is the reason that prophets remind the blessings of God to humans while they invite them to religion. Prophets invite people to believe, worship and be moral toward God as a response to these blessings. -/- Even though the content of blessing changes according to addressed person and time, the principle of the relationship between God and His servants does not change. Blessing and gratitude or blasphemy shall continue to exist as long as mankind exists. Here, the principle of “Every blessing’s gratitude is its own type” can be remembered. This principle recommends that giving thanks to God by tongue only for blessings will not be enough. Because of that, how should be grateful for different blessings should be exemplified. These definitions containing examples help us to understand better the purpose of expression of blessing in the Qurʾān. For example, the gratitude for humans’ own equipment can be through remembering always Him who gave that equipment, obey and worship Him constantly. Gratitude for children and good fortune happens by directing them towards God’s sake. As for the gratitude for the blessing of the universe, that contains signs of the existence of God, can be through recognizing his/her Creator and maintaining its existing order. If human beings break this order, he/she would be ungrateful because this would be an attitude against the one who created this order. Just as a servant might be ungrateful to God when he/she does not appreciate the blessing of prophet that reminds us God, exhibiting negative attitude against the universe that points out the existence of God is a kind of ungratefulness against God as well. So that, the blessing carries humans to faith and worship dimensions and also to moral dimension in terms of relationship between himself/herself and other things. The modern-day people need this Qurʾānic perspective. A human being should review his/her relationship between himself/herself, God, other people and the nature, then he/she should try to reach the Qurʾānic dimension by being grateful properly for blessings that he/she has. (shrink)

Aḥmad al-Chārpardī (d. 746/1346), Shāfi‘ī jurist, was one of the scholars of the period of mutakkhkhirīn. He dedicated his life to teaching students and composing works, settling in Tabriz where he remained for the rest of his life. Recognised as one of the most distinguished students of al-Qāḍī Batḍāwī (d. 685/1286), al-Chārpardī wrote a commentary on al-Bayḍāwī’s concise work on uṣūl al-fiqh entitled Minhāj al-wuṣūl, which he called al-Sirāj al-wahhāj. One of the fundamental characteristics of uṣūl al-fiqh of the mutaakhkhrīn (...) period is the structuring of issues and evidence using the terminology of theology, logic, dialectics and disputation. Based on the systematic approach of al-Bayḍāwī’s work and the understanding of uṣūl al-fiqh of his time, al-Chārpardī discusses the issues and evidence that al-Bayḍawī succinctly addressed. The aim of the study is to determine Chārpardī’s methodology in jurisprudential thought, the scholars who influenced him, and the method he employed in jurisprudential debates by focusing on the evidence that falls outside the unanimously agreed upon evidence, which includes the Qur’ān, Sunna, ijmā‘, qiyās and is subject to debate as to its validity. The limited number of studies on al-Chārpardī in Türkiye, such as those found in the TDV İslam Ansiklopedisi and the İslam Düşünce Atlası, this study is seen as contributing to an increase in research focusing on Chārpardī’s jurisprudential thought. (shrink)

Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is one of the important representatives of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Al-Ta‘līḳa is his famous work, which is one of the first commentaries of al-Muzanī’s Mukḫtaṣar. One of the important features of this work is the introduction to some of the subjects of ijtihād (process of juristic legal reasoning), taqlīd (acting upon the word of another without asking for specific proof), ijmā‘ (consensus of jurists) and view’s of the companions of the Prophet. The first systematic, complete and detailed (...) works of uṣūl al-fiqh (Islamic legal theory) that belonged to the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School have reached to the present day belong to the second half of the V./XI. century. Making research on the studies which were done about uṣūl al-fiqh and formed the basis of this period is essential to follow the development of uṣūl al-fiqh of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Transfer of the uṣūl al-fiqh in al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s al-Ta‘līḳa make it possible to determine the literatüre, which was formed in Khurāsān region in the period from the death of Shāfi‘ī to the first half of the V./XI. century until the first half of the Khurāsān region, which allows the determination of the uṣūl al-fiqh. In this study, on the basis of ijmā‘, al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī’s method in al-Ta‘līḳa will be examined.Summary: Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī is considered to be one of the most important representatives of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. In addition to receiving fiqh education from al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, who is accepted as the founder of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School in Shāfiʿī fiqh circles. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, one of the most distinguished students of al-Qaffāl al-Marwazī, has become one of the important bearers of the fiqh heritage of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. The fact that the epithet “el-kāḍî” is used in the works of Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School to absolutely refer to al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, is another issue that shows his being authority on fiqh. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn al-Marwarrūdhī has accomplished many works in the field of fiqh. The most famous and most important work of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn is the al-Ta‘lîḳa, written according to the Mukḫtaṣar arrangement style of al-Muzanī. He is often cited as the author of the well-known work al-Ta‘lîḳa in the sect. Al-Ta‘lîḳa, commonly cited in fiqh studies to refer to the views of al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, is one of the first commentary on Mukḫtaṣar by Muzanī. With these characteristics, al-Ta‘lîḳa is one of the outstanding manuscripts for exploring the fiqh legacy of the Khurāsān Shāfi‘ī School. Another important feature of this text is that uṣūl al-fiqh issues such as ijtihād, taqlīd, ijmā‘ and view’s of the companions of the Prophet (qawl al-ṣaḥābah) have been covered in the introduction of the work. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn discusses the issues of evidentiality and types of ijmā‘ and ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah in the chapter on ijmā‘ in al-Ta‘lîḳa. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also handles the debates on view’s of the companions of the Prophet in the section on ijmā‘ of ṣaḥābah. It is also seen that the proofs proposed for evidentiality of ijmā since Shāfiʿī’s period became more versatile and differed. The fact that the arguments al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites in the chapter of the evidences of ijmā‘ were also mentioned by his contemporary, al-Māwardī, an Iraqi Shāfiʿī jurist, points out the accumulation of knowledge in terms of proofs of ijmā. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes two related distinctions that are fundamentally related to the types of ijmā. The first is the division between ijmā supporters, those who argue for knowability of ijmā, and their opponents. According to this, ijmā is divided into two parts as ‘āmm (general public) ijmā‘ and khāṣṣ (scholars) ijmā‘. Opposition to ‘āmm ijmā‘, such as fardhs (obligations) in prayer, rawātib sunnah (the practice that the Prophet regularly performed) and feast prayer requires kufr (blasphemy). Al-Qāḍî Ḥusayn, who considers issues such as ‘awl (a sharing method in Islamic inheritance law), mut‘a marriage (a type of temporary marriage) and riba’l-faḍl (interest in exchange or sale transactions) which are seen as controversial ijmā‘ issues in literature, as khāṣṣ ijmā‘ and evaluates opposition to this type of ijmā‘ as fisq (impiety). The second division al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn makes is between ijmā‘ based on the text and apparent comparison, and the ijmā‘ based on hidden comparison. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn thinks that the opposition to ijmā‘ that is based on ijtihād or the text in terms of sanad (chain of narrators), requires blasphemy. In a sense, this is to accept ijmā‘ as a provision on an equal basis and to reduce the distinctions of ijmā‘ to literary level. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn also discusses evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah in connection with the issues of ijmā‘. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn opposes the thesis that ijmā‘ is only limited to companions’ era and argues that it can be realized in any century after the Prophet. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who discusses ṣaḥābah’s ijmā‘ under two categories: the views of ṣaḥābah that have gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs and those that have not gained prevalence among other companions, argues for evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which have gained prevalence and known not to be opposed. He provides significant information on ijmā‘ discussion in Shāfi‘ī fiqh methods with regard to the evidentiality of this type of qawl al-ṣaḥābah, which is referred ijmā‘ al-suqūtī (consensus based on lack of opposition-silence). The knowledge al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn cites with regard to the evidentiality of qawl al-ṣaḥābah which have not gained prevalence among other ṣaḥābahs differs from Māwardī, one of his contemporary, and his predecessors. The fact that he cites Shāfi‘ī’s previous and latest views with regard to the state of such qawl al-ṣaḥābah in the face of qiyās (legal analogy) enables him to make comparison using uṣūl material available in his era. Al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn, who mentions debatable issues among ṣaḥābah, makes controversial narrations. While al-Qāḍī Ḥusayn reports that there is not any conflict on the argument that it is legitimate to express a third view with regard to issues on which ṣaḥābah is divided in two groups and fall into conflict, his contemporary al-Māwardī and other Shāfi‘ī jurists report that it is not legitimate to propose a third view on such an issue as there is ijmā‘ on these issues. (shrink)

I critically examine an evolutionary debunking argument against moral realism. The key premise of the argument is that there is no adequate explanation of our moral reliability. I search for the strongest version of the argument; this involves exploring how ‘adequate explanation’ could be understood such that the key premise comes out true. Finally, I give a reductio: in the sense in which there is no adequate explanation of our moral reliability, there is equally no adequate explanation of our inductive (...) reliability. Thus, the argument that would debunk our moral views would also, absurdly, debunk all inductive reasoning. (shrink)

We can make new progress on stalled debates in epistemology if we adopt a new practical approach, an approach concerned with the function served by epistemic evaluations. This paper illustrates how. I apply the practical approach to an important, unsolved problem: the problem of forgotten evidence. Section 1 describes the problem and why it is so challenging. Section 2 outlines and defends a general view about the function of epistemic evaluations. Section 3 then applies that view to solve the problem (...) of forgotten evidence. (shrink)

I develop a new version of the ordinary language response to skepticism. My version is based on premises about the practical functions served by our epistemic words. I end by exploring how my argument against skepticism is interestingly non-circular and philosophically valuable.

We argue that dynamical and mathematical models in systems and cognitive neuro- science explain (rather than redescribe) a phenomenon only if there is a plausible mapping between elements in the model and elements in the mechanism for the phe- nomenon. We demonstrate how this model-to-mechanism-mapping constraint, when satisfied, endows a model with explanatory force with respect to the phenomenon to be explained. Several paradigmatic models including the Haken-Kelso-Bunz model of bimanual coordination and the difference-of-Gaussians model of visual receptive fields are (...) explored. (shrink)

David Lewis (1974, 1994/1999) proposed to reduce the facts about mental representation to facts about sensory evidence, dispositions to act, and rationality. Recently, Robert Williams (2020) and Adam Pautz (2021) have taken up and developed Lewis’s project in sophisticated and novel ways. In this paper, we aim to present, clarify, and ultimately object to the core thesis that they all build their own views around. The different sophisticated developments and defenses notwithstanding, we think the core thesis is vulnerable. We pose (...) a dilemma by considering the two sides of a current epistemological controversy over the relation between evidence and rational belief: permissivism vs. uniqueness. As we argue, the prospects for the Lewisian project look dim when either supposition is clearly made. (shrink)

If someone disagrees with my moral views, or more generally if I’m in a group of n people who all disagree with each other, but I don’t have any special evidence or basis for my epistemic superiority, then it’s at best a 1-in-n chance that my views are correct. The skeptical threat from disagreement is thus a kind of moral lottery, to adapt a similar metaphor from Sharon Street. Her own genealogical debunking argument, as I discuss, relies on a premise (...) of such disagreement among evolutionary counterparts. -/- In this paper, I resist the threat from disagreement by showing that, on some of the most influential and most attractive theories of content determination, the premise of moral disagreement cannot serve any skeptical or revisionary purposes. I examine and criticize attempts, made by Gilbert Harman and Sharon Street, to argue from disagreement to relativism by relying on a theory of content determination that involves a principle that, within certain constraints, maximizes the attribution to us of true beliefs. And I examine and criticize Robert Williams’s attempt to show there is moral disagreement by relying on a theory of content determination that involves a principle that instead maximizes the attribution to us of rationality. My overall aim is to defend commonsense moral realism via a careful look at the theory of content and concepts. (shrink)

As healthcare institutions expand and vertically integrate, healthcare delivery is less constrained by geography, nationality, or even by institutional boundaries. As part of this trend, some aspects of the healthcare process are shifted from medical centers back into the home and communities. Telehealth applications intended for health promotion, social services, and other activitiesprovide services outside clinical settings in homes, schools, libraries, and other governmental and community sites. Such developments include health information web sites, on-line support groups, automated telephone counseling, interactive (...) health promotion programs, and electronic mail exchanges. Concomitant with these developments is the growth of consumer health informatics, in which individuals seeking medical care or information are able to find various health information resources that take advantage of new information technologies. (shrink)

It can easily look like evolution is in a better position to explain the reliability of our perceptual beliefs than the reliability of our moral beliefs. This paper takes a closer look at the issue and argues that there’s no reason—no reason which armchair philosophers could uncover—to think evolution can better explain perceptual reliability than moral reliability. It also offers a diagnosis of why it seemed otherwise. The diagnosis concerns our need to use the truth predicate as a generalizing logical (...) device in the perceptual case but not in the moral case. (shrink)

This paper aims to accessibly present, and then critique, Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber's recent proposals for the evolutionary function of human reasoning. I take a critical look at the main source of experimental evidence that they claim as support for their view, namely the confirmation or “myside” bias in reasoning. I object that Mercier and Sperber did not adequately argue for a claim that their case rests on, namely that it is evolutionarily advantageous for you to get other people (...) to believe whatever you antecedently believe. And I give my own argument that this claim is false. I also critically look at their suggestion that reasoning has a justificatory function, functioning as a kind of reputation management tool. I argue this suggestion does not amount to a plausible evolutionary function. (shrink)

Is Bayesian decision theory a panacea for many of the problems in epistemology and the philosophy of science, or is it philosophical snake-oil? For years a debate had been waged amongst specialists regarding the import and legitimacy of this body of theory. Mark Kaplan had written the first accessible and non-technical book to address this controversy. Introducing a new variant on Bayesian decision theory the author offers a compelling case that, while no panacea, decision theory does in fact have (...) the most profound consequences for the way in which philosophers think about inquiry, criticism and rational belief. The new variant on Bayesian theory is presented in such a way that a non-specialist will be able to understand it. The book also offers new solutions to some classic paradoxes. It focuses on the intuitive motivations of the Bayesian approach to epistemology and addresses the philosophical worries to which it has given rise. (shrink)