According to familiar accounts, Rousseau held that humans are actuated by two distinct kinds of self love: amour de soi, a benign concern for one's self-preservation and well-being; and amour-propre, a malign concern to stand above other people, delighting in their despite. I argue that although amour-propre can (and often does) assume this malign form, this is not intrinsic to its character. The first and best rank among men that amour-propre directs us to claim for ourselves is that of occupying (...) 'man's estate'. This does not require, indeed it precludes, subjection of others. Amour-propre does not need suppression or circumscription if we are to live good lives; it rather requires direction to its proper end, not a delusive one. (shrink)
This article mainly aims to make an examination over the holy. It has been inquired into how something being ascribed holy can have a meaning in philosophy. As the article's research area, the differences in both opinion and execution which have later divided Christianity into two as Catholic and Orthodox Churches have been selected. The separation of these two churches under the subject titles such as Filioque controversy, the idea of First Among Equals (primas inter pares), and ritual of Transubstantiation (...) have also shaped how they perceived and thought the holy. With these divergences being investigated, it has been tried to present how much of a share these had in giving meaning for the holy. It has been labored to manifest the role of these two Churches' -which belong to and come from the same celestial tradition- divergences in the metamorphosis and paradigm shift that the holy underwent. For the last, through the Church Fathers' opinions and views which have been seen related to subject matter, with moving beyond the divergences, it has been searched whether there is a possibility of meeting on the common ground or not . (shrink)
In his book on Karl Barth Professor T. F. Torrance spoke at one point of ‘the great watershed of modern theology’. ‘There are,’ he wrote, 1 ‘two basic issues here. On the one hand, it is the very substance of the Christian faith that is at stake, and on the other hand, it is the fundamental nature of scientific method, in its critical and methodological renunciation of prior understanding, that is at stake. This is the great watershed of modern theology: (...) either we take the one way or the other – there is no third alter native… one must go either in the direction taken by Barth or in the direction taken by Bultmann.’. (shrink)
In recent years the writings of Ludwig Wittgenstein have received much attention from philosophers in general and especially from philosophers interested in religion; and there is no doubt that Wittgenstein's legacy of thought is both highly suggestive and highly problematical. It seems likely, however, that the vogue which Wittgenstein now enjoys owes not a little to his peculiar place in the development of modern philosophy and, in particular, of that empiricist tradition in philosophy which stems from what has been called (...) the revolution in philosophy in the early decades of the present century. (shrink)
It is a curious fact that the much maligned ontological argument to prove the existence of God has in recent times enjoyed a revival of interest to which even Karl Barth, the arch-enemy of natural theology has contributed; but since the revival of interest has appared in a wide diversity of intellectual contexts, both philosophical and theological, the revival is itself almost as problematic as the argument itself.
In his article ‘Professor Bartley's Theory of Rationality and Religious Belief’ Mr W. D. Hudson has brought considerable clarification to the rather confused situation occasioned by Professor W. W. Bartley's book The Retreat to Commitment and its subsequent discussion; but the process can, I think, be carried still further.
The purpose of this study is to offer a brief biography of Mr. M.H. Panhwar and Dr. Nabi Bux Khan Baloch, as well as their work in Sindhological studies along with a brief description of their literary differences on the origin of Sindhi language and history. A systematic literature review methodology was used to explore the contribution and contradiction of both the scholars. The study found that both the scholars were renowned researchers who worked in the fields of history, archaeology, (...) sociology, literature, and language. Both were up-to-dated academics, but their scholarly interests in history, archaeology, language, and literature were diametrically opposed. The study revealed that M.H. Panhwar was a rigorous researcher who conducted studies using scientific techniques and with the assistance of archaeological and geographical evidence. The study further explored that Dr. N. A. Baloch was a folklorist, educationist and extensive writer whose ideological hypotheses were primarily based on mythology and preserved folk literature. (shrink)
