Alper

My first aim in this study is to investigate what a distinction should be based on that would allow us to categorise philosophical works. First, I examine the distinction between continental philosophy and analytic philosophy. One way of doing this is to compare these two traditions in terms of subject matter. Although in the first half of the 20th century analytic philosophy excluded some of the basic areas of philosophy, such as ethics, aesthetics and metaphysics, in the second half of the 20th century this changed. These areas are now seen as central to the analytic tradition. Something similar can be said if one compares the two traditions in terms of writing style, use of metaphor and thought experiment, and style of argument. I argue that neither of these gives us a proper criterion for making sense of the analytic-continental distinction, which means that this distinction is not comprehensive enough to categorise philosophical works. Second, I discuss the distinction between history of philosophy and systematic philosophy, which is often used in Türkiye to group faculty members in philosophy departments. This distinction is also not promising for categorising philosophical works, because it seems to assume that a nonhistorical work is systematic, or that a systematic work does not require historical discussion. The third distinction, between philosopher-based philosophy and problem-based philosophy, provides the desired comprehensiveness. In this distinction, the criterion is whether the philosophical work seeks to clarify the views of a philosopher or whether it seeks an answer to a philosophical problem on its own. The titles of the philosopher-based works are usually of the form “The concept/problem of x in philosopher A”. The content of the work forces the writer to refer to one or more philosophers (or philosophical schools) in the title. The problem-based works, on the other hand, do not essentially depend on the views of other philosophers.Using the distinction between philosopher-based and problem-based philosophy, I then examine the doctoral theses completed in Türkiye in the last 20 years. It is plausible to assume that the doctoral thesis is one of the most important (if not the most important) piece of writing in one’s academic career. In most cases, it determines later research interests. To carry out this examination of doctoral theses, I used the Council of Higher Education’s open thesis database. This research involved looking at the title, abstract and table of contents of the thesis. In some cases, it was necessary to read parts of the main text in order to categorise the thesis.&nbsp;This examination shows that philosopher-based theses have clearly dominated the philosophical scene in the last 20 years. However, this examination also shows that the number of problem-based theses has increased in the recent period. In order to evaluate this increase, I compare two approaches to doing philosophy. After discussing the contributions that both philosopher-based and problem-based studies can make to the philosophical development of the researcher, and the shortcomings that they can cause, I ask which of these two approaches is better suited to meet society’s expectations from academic philosophy. Failure to answer criticisms such as that philosophers only engage in abstract discussions or are stuck on figures from the past may result in philosophy losing its place in the academy. From this point of view, problem-based philosophy is better suited to making practical contributions to social needs. The recent growth of interest in social epistemology and the social philosophy of language are promising examples of how philosophy can respond to social needs.In sum, problem-based philosophy is better at showing non-philosophers why philosophical problems are important by addressing these problems on their own, rather than through the mediation of a particular philosopher. In this respect, it is positive that there is a growing interest in problem-based philosophy at the doctoral level in Türkiye.

Filozof Odaklı ve Sorun Odaklı Felsefe Ayrımı Işığında Türkiye’deki Yakın Dönem Felsefe Çalışmalarına Bir Bakış

Mustafa

The claim that philosophy emerged in the Ancient Greek period is an idea that needs to be scrutinized. If it is intended to prove the fallacy of this claim, it will be enough to look at ancient civilizations such as India, China, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and Iran. For example, the Rigveda, which is thought to be the oldest written text of the Indian civilization and the Indo-European language family, and the first text of the Vedas, which is assumed to have been written before the 16th century BC, or the Upanishads, which are thought to have been composed before the 7th century BC, are examined, it is seen that most of the ideas encountered in Ancient Greek philosophy are included in these works. For example, water, which Thales saw as the fundamental principle or arkhe of everything, and a similar explanation he made based on this principle, are defended by Pracāpati Parameshthin, a thinker who lived centuries before Thales and whose name is mentioned in the Rigveda. Apeiron, Anaximander’s eternal and limitless arkhe, corresponds to Aditi in ancient Indian philosophy. In Anaximenes’ system, the air, the basic principle from which everything emerges, corresponds to Prāṇa, which corresponds to breath or vital breath in ancient Indian philosophy. We see that Diogenes of Sinope’s cynical morality and negative attitude towards life was previously adopted and defended by Raikva of the Chariot in the ancient Indian cultural world.&nbsp;We see that the similarities between Ancient Greek Philosophy and Ancient Indian Philosophy are approached more cautiously in Western literature. One often says that questions are more important than answers in philosophy. The desired answer to each question leads to the emergence of new questions. Let us get to the main subject of our study by asking the following questions: “How can we ignore that there is a philosopher named Parameshthin in India who said that the first cause, in the beginning, was ‘water’?”¹ “How should we understand the similarity between the life and philosophy of Raikva of the Chariot, mentioned in the Upanishads, and the life and philosophy of the ancient Greek thinker, the cynic Diogenes of Sinope?” “Is it possible to think of the thoughts of Buddha, which are far from God and spirit, only in religious codes and terminology?”² “What about explaining the soul-body relationship with the example of a horse-drawn chariot in Plato's Phaedrus and Katha Upanishad?”³ Of course, it is possible to increase the number of these questions. Such questions draw attention to the numerous similarities between ancient Greek and ancient Indian philosophy. These questions will lead us to think that the similarities between the two philosophical systems, which cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence, indicate a relationship of borrowing, inspiration, or influence relationship between them.Even though many philosophers now accept and research this subject and its influence, some philosophers or historians of philosophy seem to be not ready to accept this claim. Unfortunately, Western sources still contain interpretations that dismiss the apparent similarities between the two philosophical systems as mere coincidence, which is hardly surprising. For example, Richard Seaford, in his work titled The Origins of Philosophy in Ancient Greece and Ancient India, first published in 2020, claims that we cannot see the similarities between both philosophical systems as a relationship of borrowing or inspiration. According to him, if there had been an interaction between the Ancient Indian cultural world and the Ancient Greek cultural world before the time of Alexander the Great (326 BC), the traces of this would be evident in the earliest written works of the Greek cultural tradition⁴. It is thought that the first Greek scholar to mention information about ancient Indian culture was Hecataeus of Miletus, born in the mid-sixth century BC; the second Greek scholar is most likely Herodotus, born in 484 BC.⁵ Western experts often overlook the fact that in the history of Western philosophy, the number of philosophers who openly acknowledge being inspired by “Eastern” or specifically “Indian” ideas or who have incorporated them into their philosophical systems, can be counted on one hand.&nbsp;This study aims to outline how Ancient Indian philosophy was shaped and to compare it with Ancient Greek philosophy in the context of Rigveda. It should be noted that Prof. Dr. Korhan Kaya’s work, Hint Felsefesinin Temelleri, played a significant role in shaping the ideas presented in this study. As a result of this research, we aim to demonstrate that the apparent similarities between the ancient Indian and Ancient Greek philosophy were not coincidental. These similarities likely emerged because Ancient Greek philosophy was inspired by, influenced by, or borrowed ideas from Ancient Indian philosophy

Rigveda Bağlamında Antik Yunan Felsefesi ve Kadim Hint Felsefesinin Karşılaştırılması

İlker

The principle of ‘Man is a creature that lives in precity and city societies by nature’ is accepted as the starting point for explaining human sociality in Aristotle’s political philosophy and Islamic political philosophy. Focusing on the expression ‘by nature’ of this principle, the subject of this article is the problem of the source, cause, naturality and necessity of precity society and city society in terms of the political philosophy of Aristotle and Plato and the political philosophy of Islam. Sophists, Cynics and Ibn Khaldun were also included in the article in order to make comparisons. According to Aristotle's political philosophy and Islamic political philosophy, human nature is the source of sociality in the sense of precity and city societies. By human nature, not only the physical biological existence of man is meant, but also the soul intellect existence of man. In other words, the inner nature of man is understood as the interaction between physical nature and mental nature. Considering this interaction, the desire, tendency or inclination to realize the precity and city society forms potentially present in physical nature constitutes the source of human social life. The human soul, in connection with the forces of desire and anger, is directly related to the precity form of society, and determines the survival purpose of this society through the satisfaction of bodily needs and affects the social tendency in physical nature by activating it for the realization of this purpose. The rational nature, which corresponds to the form and purpose of city society, determines the lifestyle and purpose of urban society, that is, it mobilizes society to achieve the goal of good life and perfection by satisfying psychological and rational needs through virtues, crafts, sciences and philosophy. In ancient Greek political philosophy, it can be said that the Sophists, who emphasized that the city state form was established artificially rather than naturally, as it was a product of consensus among the citizens who constituted the society, differed from Aristotle's naturalistic theory in this respect. Cynics, on the other hand, oppose the idea that city state society is necessary because it eliminates freedom and is artificially established. While Ibn Khaldun attributes the social existence of man in relation to nutrition and security to the solidarity and aggression instincts present in human nature, he states that the lifestyle and livelihoods of the noncity, rural community and the lifestyle and livelihoods of the city, settled society stem from habits determined by man's external and second nature, such as climate and geography. It is possible to say that Ibn Khaldun is in common with the philosophers of political philosophy's idea of human nature in the sense of bodily nature, in terms of explaining the source of social existence with the inner nature of man. On the other hand, Ibn Khaldun's basing the lifestyles and livelihoods of the rural and city communities on the external nature surrounding man or on man's second nature differentiates him from the political philosophers' idea of man's inner naturerational nature. In Plato's political philosophy and Islamic political philosophy, while explaining the necessity as well as the naturalness of sociality, a similarity is established between the human body, which has an organic and hierarchical functioning, and society, and it is claimed that people, like organs, are inherently different in terms of talents and aptitudes, and therefore it is necessary for people who are experts in different professions to help each other and complete their deficiencies. In addition, Aristotle bases the necessity of social life on the approach that life alone belongs to wild animals and God. While explaining this necessity in Islamic political philosophy, the idea that life outside of society is not suitable for virtue is emphasized.

Antik Yunan ve İslâm Siyaset Felsefesinde İnsanın Toplumsallığının Kaynağı, Nedeni, Doğallığı ve Zorunluluğu

By examining the historical treatment of consciousness and its inherent property and intentionality in the philosophical works of Plato, Aristotle, and Avicenna (Ibn Sinâ), this research aims to uncover the conceptual threads woven throughout these different intellectual traditions, rather than to pinpoint their origins. It is argued that while Ancient Greek and Islamic philosophy lacked clear terminology for consciousness and intentionality, these concepts are nevertheless discernible in their rich soul-based theories. Moreover, we argue that these early formulations may have laid the groundwork for later notions of consciousness and intentionality, culminating in Edmund Husserl’s phenomenologyOur research begins with a close reading of Plato’s and Aristotle’s thoughts on the soul; and by careful investigation on their perspectives in the hope to provide light on the function of consciousness in Ancient Greek thinking and identify potential connections to intentionality. Though these philosophers did not use modern terminology, a nuanced analysis uncovers remarkable parallels with contemporary concepts. We also analyze why these philosophers related consciousness with soul theories and how this association may have supplied early insights into intentionality, a term that would become critical in subsequent philosophical discourse.In general, although consciousness is the undisputed central concept of current research, ancient Greek philosophers’ understanding is important in terms of giving us an idea of what consciousness was at that time with discourses on the soul. Plato’s corpus describes consciousness as a non-spatial movement that encompasses all intellectual and emotional activity. Given Plato’s view of the soul as the root of all global occurrences and essentially conscious, we are able to contend that human actions such as thinking, volition, inquiry, and moral reasoning are akin to modern concepts of consciousness. When we examine the conscious activities of human beings in this mental movement from a contemporary perspective, it can be said to bear an indirect resemblance.Nonetheless, while tracing intentionality in Plato’s work presents challenges, it ought to suggest that it manifests in his treatment of knowledge or being as always “directed toward something” – a notion that aligns with later formulations of intentionality, even if not explicitly termed as such.&nbsp;Continuing with Aristotle’s views on consciousness, as found in his foundational work On the Soul (Peri Psûkhê, De Anima), it is first necessary to distinguish between potentiality and activity. According to Aristotle, the soul develops as the completion of a process that begins with potentiality and ends with activity. This process is essentially oriented toward achieving something similar to the deliberate nature of consciousness. This fundamental directedness is precisely why we examine Aristotle’s views on the soul in terms of consciousness and intentionality. From this perspective, we can define the soul by first differentiating between potentiality and activity and then questioning consciousness within this framework.We then turn to Avicenna, whose work on the nafs (soul) and consciousness serves as a bridge between Ancient Greek thought and later medieval and modern developments. We examine Avicenna’s Flying Man thought experiment and its relation to Aristotelian metaphysics as crucial for understanding his conception of consciousness. By placing Avicenna in this dialog with Aristotle, we will be able to show how his elaboration on the soul further develops and refines the concepts of consciousness and intentionality.&nbsp;One of the main motivations behind this study is the eventual recognition that Franz Brentano and Edmund Husserl’s nineteenth-century and twentieth-century discussions of consciousness and intentionality are heirs to a long and rich philosophical tradition that we argue upon, from Ancient Greek to Islamic philosophy and further to modern phenomenology. This conception has consistently dealt with the relationship between consciousness and its intentionality to objects. By tracing this complex legacy, we aim to highlight the historical depth of these concepts and provide a philosophical framework for understanding their development.&nbsp;

Ruh, Bilinç ve Yönelimsellik: Gelenekler Arası Felsefi Bir Soruşturma

Mehmet

In this article, Ibn Sīnā's views on sensation, abstraction, and sensible qualities are interpreted against the backdrop of two contemporary debates. The first of these contexts is the claim in the works of Wallace Matson and Peter King. The second context is the debate about qualia and their status in contemporary philosophy of mind.The first context is the claim made in the two articles by Matson and King that in antiquity and the Middle Ages, sensation and perception were associated with the body and thinking with the rational soul, whereas Descartes attributed sensation, along with thinking and rational judgement, to the mind rather than the body. According to them, a mind-body problem cannot be mentioned in the pre-Descartes period since it is difficult and almost impossible to translate a sentence such as ‘what is the relation of sensation to the mind (or soul)?’ into Greek and Latin. However, the claim that the processes of sensation and perception are realised by bodily processes completely independent of the mind in antiquity and the Middle Ages becomes a controversial claim, at least in the context of Plato, Plotinus and their followers. The fact that philosophers such as Ibn Sīnā, whose philosophy is dominated by Platonic and Plotinian as well as Aristotelian aspects, address the problem of sensation and perception through the distinctions and relations between the sensory faculties and the intellect, constitute strong and compulsory exceptions to these claims. Ibn Sīnā sets a counter-example to this claim with his views on sensation, abstraction, and sensible qualities. On the one hand, Ibn Sīnā distinguished between sensation and perception, and on the other hand, he discussed the problem of the relationship between the soul's sensory and bodily faculties and its cognitive or mental faculties by making sensation the first stage of the process of abstraction that leads to rational perception. In this sense, although sensation begins at the corporeal and sensory level, due to the dualist character of the Ibn Sīnā’s theory of the soul, it is seen as an experience that does not remain at the corporeal level and is related to the immaterial and incorporeal rational soul by taking the name of perception in the process of abstraction.&nbsp;Secondly, in contemporary discussions on the types of mental phenomena, sensations or sensory qualities such as pain, itching, tickling, having successive images, seeing something round and green, smelling something, or nausea are considered as a type of mental phenomena. The term qualia is used for these sensory, qualitative states or the sensory qualities experienced in such states, sometimes called ‘phenomenal’ or ‘qualitative states’ or sometimes ‘raw sensations’. There is an approach to qualia, which almost seems to be the most fundamental problem on which contemporary discussions of consciousness are based, which is referred to as qualia representationalism or externalism. According to this approach, qualia are essentially the representative contents of experiences, and the represented contents are the qualities of external objects that are directly sensed. For example, the qualia of colour in a visual experience is what our experience represents the colour of the object as an entity, and when the representation is true, the qualia is the actual colour of the object. This approach is also known as qualia externalism since it claims that qualia are qualities possessed by external objects if the representation is true or complete. In this way, qualia are placed somewhere in the world in a physicalist manner, making it possible to reject a conception of qualia in the sense of private introspective qualities of inner experiences. In this sense, our sensory experience of objects is transparent in the sense that we directly experience the qualities of the sensed objects.Ibn Sīnā criticises two positions in the debate about whether sensible qualities have a reality in bodies. The first one, which claims that sensible qualities have no reality in bodies and is the subject of Ibn Sīnā's criticism, is the view that sensible qualities are shapes, which Ibn Sīnā attributes to Democritus and some philosophers. The second is the view that sensible qualities are impressions. Ibn Sīnā's criticisms of these two positions and his view that sensible qualities are some properties that are present in objects and cause sensations specific to each different sense reveals that he adopted an attitude similar to the approach that is expressed today as qualia representationalism or externalism.&nbsp;

Duyumsama, Soyutlama ve Duyulur Nitelikler: İbn Sînâ Nitelce Temsilcisi ya da Dışsalcısı Olabilir mi?

Abū l-Ḥasan al-ʿĀmirī (d. 381/992) is frequently regarded as the representative of the philosophical approach led by al-Kindī (d. ca. 252/866). Al-ʿĀmirī’s surviving works demonstrate his extensive knowledge of the history of philosophy and its problems, as well as the history of religions and the doctrines of different religions and sects. Al-ʿAmirī’s philosophical analysis of the issues addressed by mutakallimūn is noteworthy, particularly his examination of the relationship between God and the universe, creation, the afterlife, and the nature of human free will in the face of divine destiny.Despite the remarkable aspects of his philosophical approaches and doctrines, al-ʿĀmirī has remained in the shadows: On the one hand, almost none of the classical bio-bibliographical sources deal with al-ʿĀmirī under an independent entry, which makes it very difficult to illuminate his life. On the other hand, the fact that many of his works have not survived to the present day, and that the works that have survived to the present day often reach us only through a unique copy makes it difficult to analyze his views in a holistic manner.This article posits that, despite his relative obscurity, al-ʿĀmirī was in fact a much more influential philosopher than is generally believed, using a relatively late example, Mullā Ṣadrā (d. 1050/1641), the most influential figure of the “Isfahan School” in the history of Islamic philosophy. For this, I first pointed out the possibilities that the newly discovered copies of al-ʿĀmirī’s works offer us in evaluating his sphere of influence. These clues led me to Ṣadrā. In al-Asfār and al-Šawāhid, Ṣadrā indicates the inconsistencies in Ibn Sīnā (d. 428/1037) doctrine of eschatology by referring to the text al-Maǧālis l-sabʿ. According to him, in this text, unlike his other works, Ibn Sīnā argues that souls that have not attained perfection will perish. This text, which Ṣadrā thought to be Ibn Sīnā’s, is in fact a record of a philosophical discussion (forty-one questions and answers) between the young Ibn Sīnā and his older contemporary al-ʿĀmirī, and a comparison of the answers with al-ʿĀmirī’s works provides strong evidence that they belong to alʿĀmirī. Therefore, while Ṣadrā wants to show Ibn Sīnā’s inconsistency, he is actually referring to al-ʿĀmirī. Apart from this unintentional reference to al-ʿĀmirī, he directly quotes and comments on a long passage from al-Amad in his al-Asfār concerning Plato’s different views about the creation of the world, and Aristotle’s interpretations on them.&nbsp;Another evidence that strengthens Ṣadrā’s references, which do not attract much attention in the scholarly literature, is the “rational argument” (ḥuǧǧa ʿaqliyya) he organized based on al-ʿĀmirī’s al-Amad to prove bodily resurrection, which I have edited for the first time in this article. In this text, Ṣadrā seems to have developed a new argument for the proof of bodily resurrection by rearranging passages from the last two chapters of al-Amad (# 184-86, 192-93, 195). I think that Ṣadrā found strong support from al-ʿĀmirī’s work for the bodily resurrection, which is one of the distinctive aspects of his philosophy, and he probably reconstructed the explanation of this problem in al-Amad according to his own objectives likely in the early stages of his career.Ṣadrā constructs his concise text in the form of three premises (muqaddima) followed by an explanation (tamhīd) based on them. According to the first premise, (i) bodily resurrection, which means the return of the human rational soul to its body in the second creation (fī l-našʾat l-ṯāniya) after death, is possible. However, even though the body in the second creation will be a complete collection of the organs of the first body that the human being had in his earthly life, he will be given a new matter at this stage. The second premise states that (ii) the most supreme state in terms of wisdom and the most perfect state in terms of reward will be realized when the human rational souls are returned to their bodies on the Day of Judgment. The third premise is based on the view of the philosophers (ḥukamāʾ): (iii) When it becomes clear that a divine act is realizable in terms of divine power and the highest state in which this act can be realized is revealed, it is obligatory for the intellect to form a judgment on it and not to turn to any other act, even if that act is also within the scope of divine power. Since, according to Ṣadrā, an act can originate from the True First only because it is good (ḫayr), it is only a necessity that everything that is the most superior and the most proper originates from Him. After these three premises, Ṣadrā concludes the text by summarizing his argument, sometimes repeating the claims in the premises. According to him, the return of human souls to their bodies in the second creation is not only possible but also within God’s power. In this way, human beings will be able to attain both natural and rational happiness, and thus their souls will be perfected.&nbsp;

Bir Âmirî Okuyucusu Olarak Molla Sadrâ

Traditionally, Kantian thought is rooted in the notion that a priori concepts are fundamental, universal, and necessary preconditions for experience. These concepts are usually seen as independent of empirical influences, forming a core part of Kant’s epistemology as laid out in the Critique of Pure Reason. However, this article argues for a nuanced reinterpretation, challenging the conventional understanding by proposing an epigenetic model for the formation of a priori concepts. This approach not only revisits the core of Kantian epistemology but also brings in a dynamic perspective on how rationality and autonomy interact within the context of life.&nbsp;One of the key philosophical debates underpinning this re-evaluation is the opposition between preformationism and epigenesis, a contrast that Kant himself draws upon, particularly in the Critique of Pure Reason and the Critique of Judgment. Preformationism suggests that all traits and structures are pre-determined, much like pre-written codes that only need to unfold over time. In contrast, epigenesis emphasizes a formative process, where structures are not pre-given but develop through interaction and adaptation. The article argues that a priori concepts can be better understood through an epigenetic framework, where they are not fixed and predetermined but rather self-generated through cognitive processes. This allows for a more flexible and evolving understanding of these concepts, resonating with the dynamic interplay between reason and experience.To support this interpretation, the article draws parallels with the biological concept of Bildungstrieb (formative drive), introduced by the German biologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach. Blumenbach’s theory was influential in the late 18th century and emphasized the capacity of living organisms to self-organize and develop autonomously. By drawing on this concept, the article suggests that rational concepts, much like living organisms, exhibit a form of self-organization. This interpretation positions a priori concepts not as rigid structures imposed upon experience but as emergent properties that arise from the interaction of the cognitive faculties. This approach is not merely metaphorical; it seeks to underline a genuine parallel between biological development and cognitive formation, suggesting that understanding the latter could benefit from insights gained from the former.&nbsp;Reflective judgment, as examined in Kant’s Critique of Judgment, serves as a central point in this argument. Unlike determinative judgment, which applies existing concepts to specific objects, reflective judgment is concerned with finding new principles that can unify diverse phenomena. The article posits that reflective judgment has an autonomous and creative role, capable of generating new principles that arise from engaging with the contingencies of life. This capacity for adaptation and responsiveness to the unexpected aligns with the epigenetic model, where concepts develop not in isolation but through an ongoing process of reflection and adjustment. In this way, reflective judgment embodies a form of self-organization that challenges the static, preformed nature of traditional a priori concepts.The article further builds on this reinterpretation by engaging with contemporary philosophical discussions, particularly the work of Catherine Malabou. Malabou’s interpretation of Kant introduces the idea of a "plastic" or flexible transcendental, suggesting that even the most fundamental structures of cognition can undergo transformation. This plasticity is likened to biological plasticity, where organisms can adapt to changing conditions. Malabou’s insights help to support the article’s claim that Kant’s transcendental framework should not be seen as a rigid, unchangeable system but as one that is capable of evolution and adaptation, particularly through the mechanism of reflective judgment. Thus, the transcendental is reimagined as a dynamic and living structure, open to change rather than confined to static, predetermined rules.In rethinking the transcendental through the lens of reflective judgment, the article also revisits Kant’s ideas on causality and contingency. Traditional Kantian causality is deterministic and operates according to universal laws. However, when applied to the realm of life, strict determinism falls short of capturing the adaptive, contingent nature of living beings. The article suggests that reflective judgment allows for a reconceptualization of causality that accommodates contingency, providing a framework that can account for the flexibility and unpredictability inherent in life processes. This form of "contingent causality" does not undermine the structure of reason but rather expands it, allowing for a richer understanding of how principles can emerge from experience without being entirely determined by it.&nbsp;Ultimately, the article argues that this reinterpretation has broader implications for how we understand the relationship between autonomy, rationality, and nature. If a priori concepts can be understood as emergent rather than pre-given, then rationality itself can be seen as a more fluid, adaptive, and creative force. This perspective contrasts sharply with more rigid, classical notions of rationality, where reason is viewed as a purely deterministic and inflexible system. By proposing that reason, much like life, has the capacity for self-organization and adaptation, the article suggests a new way of thinking about autonomy—one that emphasizes flexibility, responsiveness, and the ability to generate new principles rather than merely applying pre-existing ones.The implications of this argument extend beyond Kantian philosophy to contemporary debates in fields like philosophy of biology, cognitive science, and epistemology. By framing the transcendental in a way that allows for contingency and self-organization, the article opens up possibilities for dialogue with modern theories of complexity, emergence, and systems thinking. It challenges the idea that Kantian philosophy is inherently rigid or closed off from new interpretations, instead presenting it as a system that can accommodate growth, change, and adaptation. This reimagining of the transcendental as a living, evolving structure calls for a re-examination of classical concepts, such as rationality and reflection, and suggests that Kant's insights can still offer valuable frameworks for understanding the dynamic, contingent processes of life and cognition.In conclusion, this extended analysis repositions Kant’s transcendental philosophy not as a closed, static system but as an open, adaptive framework. By drawing on biological concepts and modern philosophical interpretations, it argues for a model where a priori concepts are seen as products of a formative process akin to the self-organization found in living systems. This perspective encourages a reevaluation of how we understand the interaction between reason and experience, offering a more nuanced, dynamic account of autonomy and rationality that remains relevant to contemporary philosophical discourse.

Yaşam ve Reflektif Yargı Bağlamında Kant’ın Transendental Kavramını Yeniden Düşünmek

İbrahim

This study aims to reveal the fundamental meaning of the word an-la-m-a-k in Turkish by investigating its origin. While doing this, it uses the method that Martin Heidegger applied in his work Being and Time while determining the meanings of words such as phainomeno and logos. The idea underlying this method is as follows: some words lose their essential meanings over time. Of course, there are many reasons for this. It is necessary to reveal this lost essential meaning. Revealing means eliminating the meanings that are on the surface of words and cover them. In this way, the meaning that shows the essence of the word will reveal itself. This thought of Heidegger is an idea that is intertwined with his understanding of Being (Sein). In his understanding of Being, phainomeno is “something that shows itself with itself in itself”. In this understanding, words also manifest themselves. In this article, there is an “essence” claim regarding words. However, this “essence” is different from the “essence” claim in classical philosophical thought. As is known, the claim of “essence” in classical philosophical thought refers to the unchanging qualities of an entity or thing that determine what it is. In other words, it is seen as an element that defines the fixed and determining building block of an object beyond all its variable characteristics. The essence claimed in this article is placed in a Heideggerian context. Taking the question of Being as a basis, Heidegger evaluates the essence of beings through their existential expansions, emergence processes and the concept of “aletheia” (revelation). Therefore, for Heidegger, “essence” is not a fixed core, but a continuous process of revelation and interpretation of being. The “essence” that will be put forward in this article specifically for the word an-la-m-a-k also refers to such a process of revelation and interpretation itself. The meaning of a word directed to its essence is called the fundamental meaning in this article specifically. One of the main focal points of this study is to uncover the historical and semantic depth of the root an in the verb an-la-m-a-k. In this regard, expressions corresponding to the root an have been identified and analyzed using the method of semantic field analysis. Semantic field analysis is a crucial approach for delineating the conceptual boundaries of a word by categorizing its meaning and examining its functions in different contexts. Throughout this process, words historically linked to the root an and found in various texts over time have been meticulously examined, and their commonalities have been identified to create a conceptual map. As a result of these investiga tions, the breadth of meaning associated with the root an the different semantic layers it has acquired over time have been revealed. Thus, this study does view the root as a linguistic and conceptual entity with broader temporal and semantic dimensions. By delineating the conceptual scope of an, the research also explores its relationship with cognitive processes such as perception, memory, and understanding, ultimately providing a more comprehensive interpretation of the fundamental function of the word. This study aims to partially reveal what fundamental meaning is, going beyond the superficial dictionary definitions of words and emerging through historical, linguistic, and contextual analyses. In the introduction, the argument will be made that fundamental meaning is not merely a linguistic construct but rather a more profound and abstract structure intertwined with human existence and perception. This perspective suggests that meaning is not a static entity but rather a dynamic process influenced by historical changes, cultural narratives, and cognitive frameworks. Thus, fundamental meaning emerges as an essential layer of understanding that bridges linguistic expression with broader existential and ontological concerns. According to this study, there is a distinction between the basic meaning and the fundamental meaning of a word. Basic meaning is primarily a semantic term that refers to the first and most general definition of a word. Fundamental meaning is a deeper, existentially essential meaning that emerges through historical, linguistic, and contextual analyses. This meaning can be regarded as deepest context that encompasses and unifies all instances of a word’s usage. As will be demonstrated in this study, the fundamental meanings of an, such as binding, separating, indicating clarity, distinguishing, accumulating for later use, encompass all contextual applications of an and its derivatives. &nbsp;Fundamental meaning seeks an essential structure or foundational relationship between meanings that transcends specific contexts. However, as seen in the case of an-la-m-a-k, this essence is shaped by the integrity of historical and linguistic contexts and typically emerges in philosophical, philological, or linguistic inquiries aimed at understanding the origins and evolution of concepts. Arising from an understanding in which meaning is considered not only as a linguistic phenomenon but also as a concept linked to existence and human relations, fundamental meaning possesses a more abstract and theoretical dimension due to its emergence through philosophical and linguistic analyses. Based on these characteristics, fundamental meaning can be defined as follows: “Fundamental meaning is a conceptual structure that emerges through historical, linguistic, and contextual analyses, encompassing and unifying all instances of a word’s usage, expressing its essential foundation, and relating meaning beyond linguistic boundaries to the relationship between existence and human experience.” As a result of the study, a fundamental meaning was put forward for the root (an) as “that which separates beings from one another, or connects them, or makes their openness clear, or separates one being from another, and reveals the way of being of each of these two beings, or holds together and accumulates beings that are related to each other, and when the time comes, removes the concealment of beings by relating them to other beings.” In the context of fundamental meaning, the following determination has been made regarding the ontology of meaning: “The forms of existence of beings are noticed and associated within a context where relationality is established, and the anlam as a product of an-la-m-a-k is revealed by itself or is revealed by someone. This is the essence of an-la-m-a-k”

Heidegger Bağlamında An-la-m-a-k Sözcüğünün Kökeni ve Fundamental Anlamı

Çağlar

For Nicolai Hartmann, there is a common argument shared by attempts that miss the constitutive priority of the relation of transcendence in all forms of epistemic phenomena. The line of thought, which is crystallized in the doctrine of transcendental idealism and which Hartmann calls the “correlativistic argument,” is as follows: It is impossible to separate the object from consciousness. Even physical things that exist independently of our cognition require the recognition of a subject. To the extent that Edmund Husserl's phenomenology follows this line of thought, it becomes the focus of Hartmann's criticism. However, Hartmann sees the relation of knowing as a more fundamental relation than the intentional relation that an act of representing, imagining, thinking or judging establishes with its object. The relation of knowing that constitutes knowledge is a relation of transcendence, and what is essential here is that the object cannot be consumed by its being an object for consciousness. The physical thing which the act of knowing intends and grasps, has a 'being' that is 'trans objective'. This thing is what it is irrespective of whether consciousness makes it an object or not. This point, emphasized by Hartmann, is supported by the naive consciousness of the natural attitude. Phenomenology, on the other hand, turns its back on the realism of the natural attitude, since it commits the error of confusing the object and the existent. However, ontology, whose subject matter is the study of the being as being, does not reduce the being to the given, the intended, the represented, because the being is never an object that must be considered in relation to a subject. A phenomenological ontology that examines beings in terms of their meaning for human beings makes all beings relative to human beings. For Hartmann, however, such an attempt ignores the problem of being. Hartmann attaches importance to the fact that the prereflective intentionality that dominates the natural attitude is directed not towards the subject, but towards what confronts the subject, what presents itself to the subject. For Hartmann, not only everyday life but also the sciences maintain natural realism. Both the natural sciences and the social sciences have a belief that the objects they deal with have a reality independent of us. On the other hand, Husserl introduces terms such as bracketing and reduction to denote the reflective attitude that goes backwards from what exists to their manifestation in consciousness. According to Husserl, phenomena are not recognized in the natural attitude. In order for phenomena to be recognized, it is necessary to reflect on their givenness. However, in Hartmann's eyes, reflecting on the givenness of things is not enough to reach the thing itself. Because it is impossible to align the thing with its givenness to consciousness. When we try to understand phenomena purely in terms of their being phenomena, it becomes clear that the object that appears in them is a purely intentional object, that is, it does not matter whether this object corresponds to an existent or not. In every knowledge, nonetheless, there is the consciousness that the object is more than what is known about it at that moment. When I take into account the trans objective side of the existent, I exhibit an activity of knowing that attempts to reach into its being initself and objectify it. Here, Hartmann states that consciousness performs a “transcendent act”. The objects to which transcendent acts are directed are independent of the acts directed at them, and do not owe their existence to those acts. On the other hand, Husserl argues that in some cases there is no distinction between the intentional object of representation and its external object. The recognition of the intentional object as the same as the external object is legitimate when it is possible to prove this through experience. On the basis of the consciousness world correlation advocated by phenomenology, it can be said that the existence of things cannot be conceived without an actual consciousness. Phenomenology does not doubt the existence of actual things, but wants to prove this existence for consciousness. In order to carry out the proving process, we must cease to presuppose the existence of the beings whose existence is to be proved and look for ways to justify this presupposition rationally and legitimately. Husserl argues that everything that exists can only be thought of as an intentional unity. The fact that the physical thing is always relative to consciousness in the relation of knowledge means that it can only be said to exist as a correlate of consciousness. For Husserl, the assumption of &nbsp;a being initself that cannot be experienced in principle is contradictory. There is no property of such an allegedly inexperienced being that cannot be attributed to it on the basis of experience.

Nicolai Hartmann’ın Fenomenoloji Eleştirisi Haklı mı?: Edmund  Husserl ile bir Karşılaştırma

Funda

The problem of evil, which has its roots in ancient thought, has been discussed by scholars throughout history, and solutions have been attempted to address the problem. Despite the evils occurring in the universe, thinkers have addressed the problem against or in favor of God’s existence. Some thinkers have argued that it is not possible to speak of a purely good God in the face of evil, while others have argued that the existence of evil does not contradict God's justice and power.&nbsp;Although it is accepted that it was first formulated as a philosophical problem by Epicurus (d. 270 BCE), the problem of evil points to an ancient issue of how the belief in an all-powerful, all-knowing, and good God can be related to the evils seen in the world. The problem of evil, one of the main topics of philosophy of religion today, has also been addressed by Islamic thought traditions, and efforts have been made to provide solutions compatible with Islam’s understanding of God.&nbsp;In this study, starting from the handling of the phenomenon of evil in Ancient Greek Philosophy, the definitions and types of evil by philosophers and the views of the three schools of Islamic thought, theology, philosophy and Sufism, on this issue are evaluated. Islamic thinkers, who generally have an optimistic attitude, have tried to justify that the existence of God and evil do not contradict, and have presented many examples and proofs on the subject. Ziyāeddin al-Kamālī, one of the representatives of the Jadīdist movement, whose views on the problem of evil have been tried to be conveyed with reference to his text God’s Justice. In God’s Justice, al-Kamālī, who approaches the problem of evil in an optimistic and constructive manner, emphasizes that the phenomenon of evil does not contradict God’s wisdom and justice and tries to produce solutions by giving examples from parables and verses. This article, which is based on an analysis of the problem of evil in Islamic philosophy and Kemālī's analysis of the problem of evil in particular, deals with the problem of evil in Islamic thought. Information about Kemâlî’s life and works is given. Then, based on al-Kamālī's Philosophy of Islam, Allah's Justice, his approach to the problem of evil is tried to be revealed. In Islamic thought, the problem of evil is addressed in the sciences of theology, philosophy, and mysticism. These schools have analyzed the problem of evil within a theoretical framework and have tried to explain it in relation to God’s justice and omnipotence. In theological tradition, evil is generally discussed within the framework of the hüsün kubuh debate. Muʿtazilite, Ashʿarī and Māturīdī theologians tried to justify mental evils such as natural disasters, diseases, murder, rape, torture, theft, etc. within the framework of divine justice. When we examine the problem of evil in the philosophical system, philosophers, based on their understanding of the theory of emanation, saw evil as the absence of goodness and tried to explain the types of evil from this perspective. When we look at Sufis, on the other hand, they dealt with evil within the framework of God and the world as in philosophy and theology and made sense of evil from the perspective of wahdat al-wujūd, which constitutes the center of Sufism’s understanding of existence. In this study, after drawing a general framework on this ancient issue, Ziyāeddin Kamālī (d. 1942), an important thinker of the movement known as "Jadidism" in modern Islamic thought, will try to reveal his views on the problem of evil in line with the short text he wrote to address this issue.

Ziyâeddin El-Kemâlî ve Kötülük Problemine Yaklaşımı

Frankfurt Okulu Bağlamında Modern Toplumlarda Akıl, Hakikat ve Teknoloji

Murat

Examining the political paradoxes revealed by Paul Ricœur is the aim of this essay. The French philosopher developed the idea of political paradoxes for the first time over the Budapest Event. In what follows, he considers paradoxes to show the intersection between ethics, morality, and politics. In the earliest phase, paradoxes express political evil and over-politicization of the state. For Ricœur, the status of political is crucial. In his view, the autonomy of political has two contrasting features. Firstly, it is a specific rationality that cannot be reduced to economic and sociological relations. Secondly, alongside this specific rationality, politics produces political evils or the evils of political power. So the task of political philosophy is not to choose one against the other but to grasp the paradoxes within both. In his view, the state is both reason and violence. As a result, Ricœur begins to think of the two traditions of political philosophy together. Plato and Marx on the one hand, Aristotle, and Rousseau on the other. Rational elements can produce political evils. Likewise, as for its methodology, rather than a systematic understanding of his political thought, it puts forward an understanding the paradoxes from which Ricœur’s political thought emerges. Thus, it is concluded that political philosophy opens itself to the possibility of thinking only through paradoxes and aporias. Ricœur believes that instead of choosing between political philosophies such as horizontally-oriented Aristotle’s and Rousseau’s and vertically-oriented Plato’s and Marx’s, the main task is to think both together. Ricœur believes in liberalism that takes into account the specificity of power. Without negating power, he tries to reflect on the political evil of power to conceive the contexts of political freedom. All of Ricœur’s ideas on a variety of topics and issues – history, political theology, authority, action, etc. – are riven by the conflict between horizontality and verticality. This conflict haunts Ricœur’s interpretations of philosophers like Hannah Arendt, Michael Walzer, Cornelius Castoriadis, John Rawls, and Claude Lefort. The French philosopher constantly reminds us of the forgotten of thought. The criticisms that can be leveled against Ricœur are based on the paradox. The attempt to treat verticality and horizontality as paradoxical ends with the French philosopher’s perspective that moderate politics will be produced every time. In other words, paradox as a radical beginning ends with moderate political content. For the conclusion that things have reached balance and order against too statist or too horizontal attitudes, the conflicted states of the political are often needed. Revolutionary ruptures pave the way for a new process in history. Even for this need, Ricœur’s paradoxes offer an incredible possibility. The radicality of the paradoxes, rather than their conclusions, then, becomes a necessary possibility for thinking political contents. In his most recent writings, he expands on the political paradox to include the paradox of authority, the paradox of the theological-political, and the paradox of historical act. Ultimately, it evolves from the moral to the just. This article has established its scope as the initiation of the inquiry into justice. He opposes both the over-politicization of the vertical relation and the post-politicizing effect of the horizontal relation on the sphere of citizens. Political philosophy can fulfill its critical task only through a paradoxical conception of the cycle of text, event, and concept. In this context, a text on political philosophy must feel a constant anxiety about the overconfidence of its concepts in interpreting the political event. The attitude and task of political philosophy towards the event is not to transform the event into a consumable theoretical object, quite the opposite; it is to grasp the plural dynamics of the seizure of the enigma in the event.

Paul Ricœur ile Politik Paradoksları Düşünmek

Soheil

Locke ve Mill’in Özgürlük Kavramları Arasında Bir Karşılaştırma

Cengiz

Prof. Dr.

CALL FOR PAPERS

An Overview of Recent Philosophical Works in Türkiye in the Light of the Distinction Between Philosopher-Based and Problem-Based Philosophy

Comparison of Ancient Greek Philosophy and Ancient Indian Philosophy in the Context of Rigveda

The Source, Cause, Naturality and Necessity of Human Sociality in Ancient  Greek and Islamic Political Philosophy

Soul, Consciousness, and Intentionality: An Inter-Traditional Philosophical Investigation

Sensation, Abstraction and Sensible Qualities: Can Ibn Sīnā be Qualia Representationalist or Externalist?

Mullā Ṣadrā as a Reader of al-ʿĀmirī

Rethinking Kant’s Transcendental Concept in the Context of Life and Reflective Judgment

The Origin and Fundamental Meaning of the Word an-la-m-a-k in the Context  of Heidegger

Is Nicolai Hartmann’s Critique of Phenomenology Justified? A Comparison with  Edmund Husserl

Zı̇yâeddin Al-Kamālī and His Approach to the Problem of Evil

Reason, Truth and Technology in Modern Societies in the Context of The Frankfurt School

Thinking Political Paradoxes with Paul Ricœur

A Comparison between Locke’s and Mill’s Notions of Liberty

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

In the history of philosophy, Descartes’s Cogito ergo sum or I think therefore I am has an important place in his search for indubitable knowledge. Descartes finally identifies this sentence as an Archimedean point for constructing a strong basis for the sciences and he eliminates the radical skepticism created by the deceiver argument in the First Meditation. We see that, especially in the Second Meditation, without stating the Cogito explicitly, Descartes declares that “thought” belongs only to him and he defines himself such as “thinking I”, “thinking substance”, “thinking existence”. In doing so, he discovers the relationship between thought and existence. However, he does not hesitate to describe his “I” or self as something mysterious. Thus, it has been observed that there is extensive discussion in the literature about the nature of this “I” or self. Besides that, the Cogito argument has been argued since the time of Descartes as whether it is an inference, a syllogism or a performance and this discussion will be mentioned through Objections and Replies in the “Introduction” part of this article. Moreover, Jaakko Hintikka claims that the Cogito argument is not an inference but it is a performance. Does Descartes consider it as a syllogism, an inference, or a performative act?In this article, firstly, the function of the Cogito argument will be presented, and then throughout The Second Meditation, the sub-arguments of the Cogito argument will be addressed by analysis of Anthony Kenny. Later, Hintikka’s assertions about performative character of the Cogito argument will be discussed. In addition, the function of “I” and the question of “whether Cogito is an inference or not” will be discussed through the lens of some philosophers who belong to tradition of analytic philosophy. Let us briefly mention which commentators will be considered in this article.First, we will mention Anthony Kenny’s analysis of the structure of Cogito in the Second Meditation, as Kenny clearly outlines the sub-arguments of Cogito and discusses them in detail. Kenny emphasizes that the term “I” is not even clear after Cogito ergo sum, whereas “thinking” is clear, and that the conclusion of Cogito is not merely “I exist” but “it is true that I exist”. He also refers to Bertrand Russell’s comment that states the use of “I” is superfluous and, in fact, does not refer to any specific entity and datum. According to Kenny, Descartes would be likely to accept that “I” it is not a datum, as he would regard the Cogito argument as an inference.&nbsp;Thus, the issue will be addressed by examining whether the Cogito is an inference or, as Jaako Hintikka suggests, a performance. Hintikka argues that Cogito ergo sum is not a valid inference and supports his claim with examples involving Hamlet and Homer. However, these examples are weak and unconvincing. It is worth noting that most of the commentators we consider criticize Hintikka’s analysis. Next, we will consider Peter Geach and Ayer who both discuss the situation of “I” in the Cogito argument and maintain that the “I” in the Cogito does not have to refer anything. Ayer further argues that “I exist” already is accepted by Descartes as true, and therefore does not need to be inferred from the Cogito. According to Ayer, Descartes chose the Cogito argument precisely because its negation implies “I exist” already. Ayer thinks that the primary error in the Descartes’s thought lies in his method of deduction.Then, we will consider James Carney’s comment. Carney asks that although Descartes postpones whether his mind is physical or not to Sixth Meditation, why do Hobbes, Ayer and Hintikka claim that it is not physical and this is shown in the Second Meditation? Carney thinks that in the Second Meditation, Descartes defines himself as “thinking existence” and this definition causes these philosophers think that Descartes accepts his mind as something not physical. Carney stresses that by defining himself as a “thinking existence”, Descartes already clarifies his “I” and he explains how Descartes’s justification about physical objects do not belong to “I”. Carney thinks that it would be wrong to infer that through “I”, that means conscious mind and Descartes rashly infers his existence from his thinking, the idea as claimed by Hobbes and Hintikka. And then we will consider Harry Frankfurt’s comments especially about Hintikka’s analysis. Frankfurt accepts that the Cogito argument has a performatory character but he also claims that it is an inference. Frankfurt thinks that Hintikka is not successful at demonstrating the performatory character of the Cogito argument and he claims that a valid inference can be found in the Second Meditation. Then we will mention Edwin Curley’s comments on the Cogito argument. We think it is interesting to note Curley’s claim because he also thinks that the Cogito argument is both an inference and a performance. Lastly, we will mention Turkish philosopher Mehmet Emin Erişirgil who stresses that Descartes’s effort to eliminate confusion about whether the Cogito argument syllogism or not. Erişirgil thinks that this confusion is due to his usage of “ergo” in the argument but he also stresses that the Cogito argument enables Descartes with strong foundation in his philosophy. Through all these comments, we will also add our comments and will try to give the reason why the Cogito argument in the Second Meditation, is both an inference and a performance.

The Cogito Argument in Descartes’ Second Meditation as Inference and Performance: A Critical Discussion Through the Analytic Tradition

Sever

An early expression of Plato’s ideal of philosopher-king or, in other words, philosophical sovereignty, which has been subject of debate throughout the history of thought, can be seen in his dialogue Gorgias. The dialogue which has a rich content in which many basic themes are addressed in one way or another, is extremely important for understanding the development of Platon’s philosophy and its main concerns. The dialogue, in which he expresses his ideas through Socrates’ mouth, is essentially a discussion of what the “good life” is. According to Plato, the answer of this question can only be found through philosophy, not rhetoric. According to him, rhetoric and philosophy are in opposition to each other in terms of what the good life is and how it ought to be lived. Plato defends and preaches a philosophical ideal of life in the dialogue Gorgias. He sets out his philosophical ideal of life through the example of his teacher Socrates; namely, Socrates embodies the ideal of the good life in his own life. Socrates constantly urges people to take care of their own souls, to transform and perfect themselves morally. His philosophical practices whose basic aim is the transformation of the self are certainly not indifferent to social life. Plato also does not conceive of individual and social transformations as separate things. For him, politics is social morality and morality is individual politics.The construction of a public life based on the essential side of human beings can only be possible through politics. Politics is a science that requires expertise in the art of politics. Politics as a science (episteme) or as a truth will necessarily have a philosophical character. Politics, as the activity for implementing the public good, is the very purpose of philosophy, in fact, it is philosophy itself. The direction of truth to social life, the improvement of the world, the illumination of the cave will be possible through philosophy's intervention in life, through the philosopher's return to the cave. In other words, the construction of Kallipolis and the achievement of social happiness will only be possible with the ruling of the philosopher who combines wisdom and power. For this reason, Plato brings the philosopher to the cave or to the state back, who contemplates the Ideas. He imposes ethical and political responsibility on him, even at the expense of his happiness. He hopes that the realization and manifestation of justice, which is the goal of the State, will be realized through him. For this reason, Plato delegates the task of governance to the philosopher-king in his Republic.An early and powerful version of Plato’s idea of leaving the direction and administration of the state to the philosopher appears in his dialogue Gorgias. Here Plato advocates the transfer of political sovereignty to philosophy and the philosopher on behalf of philosophy. However, the ultimate goal of this transfer of power and revolution is the well-being and salvation of the soul. In other words, the Plato’s understanding of philosophical politics is essentially a kind of spiritual politics that aims to make human beings virtuous. For, according to Plato, true politics is essentially an art whose job is to deal with souls. When politics is understood as dealing with souls, philosophy, whose job is to make souls good, to heal them, becomes the only true political art, and the philosopher naturally becomes the only true politician. In this case, every philosophical activity that deals with souls becomes a political activity. A politics that aims only to gain power and to satisfy pleasures is not a reasonable and legitimate politics in Plato's view. Politicians who engage in politics are not true statesmen for this purpose. For this reason, Plato strongly criticizes Athenian politicians. Relying on rhetoric and aiming for nothing but power and pleasure, these rulers are only concerned with the material welfare of the people. However, the main thing is not a comfort, but the health of the citizens’ souls. This politics of power and pleasure leads to decay. Socrates is the only true politician in Athens who tries to perfect people's souls. Philosophers should be the rulers for the just administration of the state. Governance that aims at the happiness and salvation of the soul has a spiritual character. The sphere of sovereignty of the philosopher transcends the material one; it goes beyond it. The king-philosopher is primarily ruler of souls.&nbsp;

Philosophy, Power and Salvation: Philosophical Power and Spiritual Politics in Plato’s Gorgias Dialogue

Yunus

In this study, In this study, firstly, postmodernism’s perspective on “reality” was discussed, and then the role of religion in the construction of “reality” was revealed and various criticisms were made from a hermeneutical perspective. In the next stage, existentialism’s approach to “reality” is presented in a way that supports the postmodernist understanding. Finally, the study was concluded by evaluating whether a stable and single “reality” was possible within the framework of the findings.&nbsp;In the article, the “reality” understandings of different fields such as postmodernism, existentialism and religion are discussed in a multidimensional way within the framework of the subject of the study. Reality and knowledge are questioned within the framework of their relations with power. The close relationship between postmodernsim and the Gadamerian hermeneutic perspective with subjectivity is associated with existentialism, and the invalidity of the idea of method in social sciences is emphasized. Existentialism is a philosophical approach that is not interested in objectivity and claims that truth is subjective. Since humans are not objects that can be investigated with scientific methods, existentialism has always avoided objectifying the individual.Postmodernism has an understanding that gives importance to multiculturalism. For this reason, the claim that there can be more than one truth rather than one has an important place in this approach. The existence of rules and limitations seems contrary to this understanding. Individuals who adopted this approach, scientific certainty was approached with suspicion.&nbsp;Language is far from revealing a fixed reality and can only be seen as a means of reconciliation. Since the relationship between knowledge and language cannot be ignored, it would be appropriate to adopt a skeptical approach in all our scientific activities. The reality revealed through concepts may mislead us. Because concepts are built in line with needs. The close relationship and interaction of language and culture, which have an important place in the construction of reality, with religion and tradition, is the biggest obstacle to a generalizable understanding of reality. Nietzsche also did not believe in the existence of a reality free from human influence.While the understanding of Medieval Christianity, one of the divine religions, claims that it reveals all the truth about science, life and the universe, Islam has not ignored science and the cultural life specific to societies since its beginning. Islam has valued multiculturalism by not rejecting the understanding of “truth” specific to cultures that do not contradict its basic principles. In this sense, Islam exhibits partial similarities with postmodernism, the Gademerian philosophical hermeneutic approach and the existential approach. Bryan Stanley Turner also thought that there are similarities between Islam and postmodernism and that cooperation can be made.&nbsp;The Reformation Movement that Martin Luther started against the strict stance of the Catholic faith gave rise to Protestantism. According to Luther, anyone who read the “Holy Text” could understand it without the need for an intermediary. He argued that interpretation was necessary in understanding the Holy Bible. Like Luther, Gadamer also believed in the necessity of interpretation in every situation. Despite some of his criticisms, Gadamer was generally influenced by Protestantism. The idea of a hermeneutic circle seen in Gadamer is similar to Luther’s ideas. In Gadamer’s hermeneutic approach, the relationship between “tradition”, which makes understanding and interpretation possible, and prejudices is never ignored. Gadamerian tradition seems more effective in understanding and interpretation.&nbsp;Gadamer developed his hermeneutic approach based on the ideas of Martin Heidegger. Heidegger saw phenomenology as a tool for understanding the relationship between humans (Dasein) and other beings. Phenomenology deals with the consideration of what exists in daily life as it is, and uses hermeneutics as a tool for this purpose.&nbsp;Realities specific to societies are valuable when they do not extend their hegemony over others and are not generalizable.

A Look at “Reality” in the Social Sciences in the Context of Postmodernism

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Muhsin

Prof.

Art as a Procedure of Signification

Zeynep

Assist. Prof.

From the Logos of the Natural World to the Logos of the Aesthetical World: Cézanne’s Listening Eyes

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Güncel

Art As A Relational “World” and The Deterioration of The Object in The New Aesthetic Experience

Adnan

The Meaning of Life as a Work of Art

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi has been the scholarly publication of Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Philosophy since 1945. It is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal published two times a year in June and December. As of 2024, the print version has been stopped. The journal has become an online-only publication.

Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi aims to contribute to dissemination of knowledge in the field by publishing original research, translation and book review articles in Turkish, English, German and French.

Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi has a scope that covers all areas of philosophy. The target group of the Journal consists of academicians, researchers, professionals, students, related professional and academic bodies and institutions.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Nedim

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

The Philosopher’s Index

Gale Cengage

Ulrichsweb

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Archives of Philosophy

@INFO_TAB_ABOUT

Editor in Chief

Co Editor in Chief

Editorial Management Board Member

Editorial Assistant

Publicity Manager

Editorial Board Member

@INFO_TAB_BOARDS

Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi has been the scholarly publication of Istanbul University, Faculty of Letters, Department of Philosophy since 1945. It is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal published two times a year in June and December.Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi aims to contribute to dissemination of knowledge in the field by publishing original research, translation and book review articles in Turkish, English, German and French.Archives of Philosophy - Felsefe Arkivi has a scope that covers all areas of philosophy. The target group of the Journal consists of academicians, researchers, professionals, students, related professional and academic bodies and institutions.And French.

Aim & Scope

TÜBİTAK ULAKBİM TR DizinDOAJ (Directory of Open Access Journals)ERIH PLUSGale CengageThe Philosopher’s IndexSOBIAD<a href="https://about.proquest.com/en/products-services/Ulrichsweb/" target="_blank" style="font-size: 14.6667px;">Ulrichsweb</a>

Indexing and Abstracting

The journal is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a> The subjects covered in the manuscripts submitted to the Journal for publication must be in accordance with the aim and scope of the Journal. Only those manuscripts approved by every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Changing the name of an author (omission, addition or order) in papers submitted to the Journal requires written permission of all declared authors.Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unethical behaviors. All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. Plagiarism Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. If plagiarism/self-plagiarism will be found authors will be informed. Editors may resubmit manuscript for similarity check at any peer-review or production stage if required. High similarity scores may lead to rejection of a manuscript before and even after acceptance. Depending on the type of article and the percentage of similarity score taken from each article, the overall similarity score is generally expected to be less than 15 or 20%. Double Blind Peer-Review After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by the editors-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope. The editor provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles and hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Policies

The journal is an open access journal and all content is freely available without charge to the user or his/her institution. Except for commercial purposes, users are allowed to read, download, copy, print, search, or link to the full texts of the articles in this journal without asking prior permission from the publisher or the author. This is in accordance with the <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read" target="_blank">BOAI</a> definition of open access.The open access articles in the journal are licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.en" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) license.

All expenses of the journal are covered by the Istanbul University. Processing and publication are free of charge with the journal. There is no article processing charges or submission fees for any submitted or accepted articles.

Authors publishing with the journal retain the copyright to their work licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International license (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/</a> ) and grant the Publisher non-exclusive commercial right to publish the work. CC BY-NC 4.0 license permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Editor should consider publishing correction if minor errors that do not effect the results, interpretations and conclusions of the published paper are detected. Editor should consider retraction if major errors and/or misconduction that invalidate results and conclusions are detected.Editor should consider issuing an expression of concern if there is evidence of research or publication misconduct by the authors; there is evidence that the findings are not reliable and institutions of the authors do not investigate the case or the possible investigation seems to be unfair or nonconclusive. The guidelines of <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> and <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> are taken into consideration regarding correction, retractions or expression of concern.RetractionJournal follows <a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/retraction-guidelines-cope.pdf" target="_blank">COPE’s Retraction Guidelines</a> in case of retraction. The editor has the right to retract an article if: <ul><li>There is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable; either as a result of a major error (e.g. miscalculation or experimental error), or as a result of fabrication (e.g. of data) or falsification (e.g. image manipulation).</li><li>It contains plagiarised content. </li><li>It has been published elsewhere without proper attribution. </li><li>It contains material or data without authorisation for use.</li><li>There is copyright infringement or there is some other serious legal issue.</li><li>It reports unethical research. </li><li>There is evidence that the peer-review process is compromised or manipulated.</li><li>The author(s) failed to disclose a significant competing interest (also known as a conflict of interest) that, in the opinion of the editor, would have unduly influenced the interpretation of the work or the recommendations of the editors and peer reviewers.</li></ul>In case of retraction the following steps are followed:<ul><li>Retraction notice including article title is published in a subsequent issue of the journal. The retraction notice is paginated and listed in the table of contents. </li><li>A link is provided between the retraction notice and the original article in the electronic version. </li><li>The online article is preceded by a page containing the retraction notice; the reader can then proceed to the article itself.</li><li>The original article remains unchanged, except for a watermark on the .pdf on each page stating that it has been &#34;retracted”.</li></ul>Article Removal for Legal ReasonsIn the following circumstances, except the metadata (title and authors), the text of the article is removed and a page informing that the article has been removed for legal reasons replaces the article. <ul><li>The article is found to be defamatory or to infringe the legal rights of others, and retraction is not deemed to be an adequate solution.</li><li>The article has been, or is reasonably likely to be the subject of a court order.</li><li>There is a significant risk to public health. </li></ul>

To guarantee that all papers published in the journal are maintained and permanently accessible, articles are stored in Dergipark which serves as a  national archival web site and at the same time permits LOCKSS to  collect, preserve, and serve the content.Additionally, authors are encouraged to self-archive the final PDF version of their articles in open electronic archives with  that conform to standards of Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>). Authors should provide a link from the deposited version to the URL of IUPress journal website.

The Artificial Intelligence Policy, prepared in light of developments in artificial intelligence (AI) and practices in scholarly publishing, sets out the editorial and ethical principles that authors, reviewers, and editors should follow when using such technologies. The following sources have been considered in the preparation of the AI policy:Committee on Publication Ethics <a href="https://publicationethics.org/guidance/cope-position/authorship-and-ai-tools" target="_blank">(COPE) - Authorship and AI tools</a>; International Committee of Medical Journal Editors <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four" target="_blank">(ICMJE) - Artificial Intelligence (AI)-Assisted Technology; World Association of Medical Editors  (WAME) Chatbots, Generative AI, and Scholarly Manuscripts</a><a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html#four"></a>AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models [LLMs], chatbots, or image generators) can develop and produce a wide variety of content, including text, images, audio, and synthetic data. When used ethically and safely, these capabilities can increase productivity and foster innovation, but when used without human guidance, they pose risks such as inaccurate and biased results, omissions and errors in citations, deficiencies in protecting privacy and intellectual property rights, and potential violations of authors' and publishers' rights. IUPress adopts the following core principles to avoid these risks in the use of AI:  <ul><li>Details of any AI used in the production of content (including but not limited to text, figures, images, and code) must be declared and clearly explained in the appropriate section of the paper (as an acknowledgement and/or in the methods section). </li><li>No AI tool may be listed as an author in any scientific paper. </li><li>Authors are responsible for the accuracy, completeness, and originality of their work, even if AI is used in any way; they are responsible for the proper referencing and attribution of others' ideas, data, words, or other materials. </li><li>Reviewers and editors must not upload submitted work, in whole or in part, to any generative AI application.</li></ul>In the editorial processes of IUPress publications, tools are available to assist editors in identifying AI-generated content. On the other hand, it is common to use AI tools that provide suggestions for improving and enhancing readability, language, and grammar, and such AI tools can be used in IUPress publications under the supervision of editors and authors.

Artificial Intelligence Policy

<ul><li>Authors are required to declare if they have used AI-assisted technologies (such as large language models [LLMs], chatbots, or image generators) in the creation of their submitted work. </li><li>Authors should explain, both in the cover letter and in the appropriate section of the submitted paper (as a footnote and/or in the methods section), which AI tool and which version of it they have used and for what purpose. </li><li>Authors should also indicate how they used the AI tool and how they assessed the validity of the results obtained using this technology, and what aspects of the paper, manuscript content, data or supporting files were influenced by the use of the AI tool or were generated by AI.</li><li>It is the authors' responsibility to ensure the accuracy, validity and appropriateness of content and citations generated by AI-assisted technologies and to eliminate potential errors, inconsistencies and biased results. </li><li>Authors should always check the original sources to eliminate possible plagiarism, recognising that there is a potential for plagiarism in texts produced with AI-assisted technologies. They should confirm that they have checked and that the sources are original.  </li><li>AI-assisted tools (such as ChatGPT) cannot be listed as authors because they cannot be responsible for the accuracy, integrity, and originality of the work, and these responsibilities are essential to authorship. Therefore, authors are responsible for all material involving the use of AI-assisted technologies. Authors should ensure that all statements in the article that state the hypotheses, interpretations, conclusions, limitations, and implications of the study represent their own opinions.  </li><li>Studies created by authors using AI tools in the following ways, which substitute for the basic researcher's and author's responsibilities, violate the principles of scientific publishing and publication ethics, and such studies are not eligible for inclusion in publications: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Generation of text or code without rigorous review, </li><li>Generation of synthetic data to replace missing data without a robust methodology, </li><li>Creation of any inaccurate, synthetic content, including abstracts or supplementary materials, </li><li>Creation and manipulation of images and figures (pictures, graphs, data tables, medical images, image snippets, computer codes and formulae) or original research data (enhancing, hiding, moving, removing or adding a particular feature within an image or figure) using AI.</li></ul></ul>

It is essential to maintain confidentiality in the peer review process and not to share or use the reviewed work in this process. <a href="https://publicationethics.org/sites/default/files/ethical-guidelines-peer-reviewers-cope.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers</a>)<ul><li>Reviewers should not upload a manuscript or part of a manuscript submitted to them for review to generative AI tools or large language models to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process, as uploading content to such AI tools by reviewers violates the authors' privacy and property rights.  </li><li>Reviewing a scientific paper is a responsibility that can only be undertaken by human beings. The critical thinking and original evaluation required for peer review is beyond the scope of this technology, and there is a risk that the technology will produce inaccurate, incomplete or biased conclusions about the paper. The peer review report and decision letters should reflect the personal assessment of the reviewers and editors of the submitted content. The reviewer is responsible and accountable for the content of his/her report. </li><li>AI tools may be used in a limited way to improve the quality of the language of the peer review report (for translation or language editing) in the context of peer review. If such use is made, the reviewer must declare the use when submitting the report. </li><li>Reviewers who suspect inappropriate or undisclosed use of generative AI in a submission should report their concerns to the editor.</li></ul>

Editors are obliged to ensure that the confidentiality of the manuscripts submitted to the journal is maintained during the evaluation process, and it is essential that the peer-reviewed work is not shared or used outside the parties involved in that process. (COPE - Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors) <a href="https://publicationethics.org/files/Code_of_conduct_for_journal_editors_Mar11.pdf" target="_blank">(COPE – Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines for Journal Editors)</a>.<ul><li>Editors should not upload a submitted article, or any part of it, to generative Artificial Intelligence tools or Big Language Models to assist in the review, evaluation or decision-making process, as this may violate authors' privacy and property rights. </li><li>Managing the editorial review of a scientific article implies responsibilities that can only be attributed to humans. Generative AI or AI-assisted technologies should not be used by editors to assist in the evaluation or decision-making process of an article, as the critical thinking and original evaluation required for this task is beyond the scope of this technology and there is a risk that the technology will produce inaccurate, incomplete or biased conclusions about the article. The editor is responsible and accountable for the editorial process, the final decision and its communication to the authors.</li><li>Editors should not use generative AI tools to compose decision letters or abstracts of unpublished research. </li><li>Editors may use generative AI tools to help find appropriate reviewers.</li><li>If editors suspect the use of generative AI in a submitted manuscript or a submitted referee report, they should conduct an editorial review of the matter and consider the policy.</li></ul>

<div style="text-align: left;">Archives of Philosophy – Felsefe Arkivi is committed to upholding the highest standards of publication ethics and pays regard to Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing published by the <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, the <a href="https://doaj.org/apply/transparency/#principles-of-transparency-and-best-practice-in-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)</a>, the <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a>, and the <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> on <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing" target="_blank">https://publicationethics.org/resources/guidelines-new/principles-transparency-and-best-practice-scholarly-publishing</a></div>All submissions must be original, unpublished (including as full text in conference proceedings), and not under the review of any other publication synchronously. Authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.Each manuscript is reviewed at least two referees under double-blind peer review process. Plagiarism, duplication, fraud authorship/denied authorship, research/data fabrication, salami slicing/salami publication, breaching of copyrights, prevailing conflict of interest are unnethical behaviors.All manuscripts not in accordance with the accepted ethical standards will be removed from the publication. This also contains any possible malpractice discovered after the publication. In accordance with the code of conduct we will report any cases of suspected plagiarism or duplicate publishing.

Ethics

Archives of Philosophy – Felsefe Arkivi adheres to the highest standards in research ethics and follows the principles of international research ethics as defined below. The authors are responsible for the compliance of the manuscripts with the ethical rules.- Principles of integrity, quality and transparency should be sustained in designing the research, reviewing the design and conducting the research.- The research team and participants should be fully informed about the aim, methods, possible uses and requirements of the research and risks of participation in research.- The confidentiality of the information provided by the research participants and the confidentiality of the respondents should be ensured. The research should be designed to protect the autonomy and dignity of the participants.- Research participants should participate in the research voluntarily, not under any coercion.- Any possible harm to participants must be avoided. The research should be planned in such a way that the participants are not at risk.- The independence of research must be clear; and any conflict of interest or must be disclosed.- In experimental studies with human subjects, written informed consent of the participants who decide to participate in the research must be obtained. In the case of children and those under wardship or with confirmed insanity, legal custodian’s assent must be obtained.- If the study is to be carried out in any institution or organization, approval must be obtained from this institution or organization.- In studies with human subject, it must be noted in the method’s section of the manuscript that the informed consent of the participants and ethics committee approval from the institution where the study has been conducted have been obtained.

It is authors’ responsibility to ensure that the article is in accordance with scientific and ethical standards and rules. And authors must ensure that submitted work is original. They must certify that the manuscript has not previously been published elsewhere or is not currently being considered for publication elsewhere, in any language. Applicable copyright laws and conventions must be followed. Copyright material (e.g. tables, figures or extensive quotations) must be reproduced only with appropriate permission and acknowledgement. Any work or words of other authors, contributors, or sources must be appropriately credited and referenced.All the authors of a submitted manuscript must have direct scientific and academic contribution to the manuscript. The author(s) of the original research articles is defined as a person who is significantly involved in “conceptualization and design of the study”, “collecting the data”, “analyzing the data”, “writing the manuscript”, “reviewing the manuscript with a critical perspective” and “planning/conducting the study of the manuscript and/or revising it”. Fund raising, data collection or supervision of the research group are not sufficient roles to be accepted as an author. The author(s) must meet all these criteria described above. The order of names in the author list of an article must be a co-decision and it must be indicated in the <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/45E23644BDEE41E09BB14937398BF28A" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form.</a> The individuals who do not meet the authorship criteria but contributed to the study must take place in the acknowledgement section. Individuals providing technical support, assisting writing, providing a general support, providing material or financial support are examples to be indicated in acknowledgement section.All authors must disclose all issues concerning financial relationship, conflict of interest, and competing interest that may potentially influence the results of the research or scientific judgment. When an author discovers a significant error or inaccuracy in his/her own published paper, it is the author’s obligation to promptly cooperate with the Editor-in-Chief to provide retractions or corrections of mistakes.

Editor-in-Chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors. He/She provides a fair double-blind peer review of the submitted articles for publication and ensures that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential before publishing.Editor-in-Chief is responsible for the contents and overall quality of the publication. He/She must publish errata pages or make corrections when needed.Editor-in-Chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers. Only he has the full authority to assign a reviewer and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers must have no conflict of interest with respect to the research, the authors and/or the research funders. Their judgments must be objective.Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees must be ensured. In particular situations, the editor may share the review of one reviewer with other reviewers to clarify a particular point.

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.The editor hands over the papers matching the formal rules to at least two national/international referees for double-blind peer review evaluation and gives green light for publication upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.

Peer Review

Only those manuscripts approved by its every individual author and that were not published before in or sent to another journal, are accepted for evaluation.Submitted manuscripts that pass preliminary control are scanned for plagiarism using iThenticate software. After plagiarism check, the eligible ones are evaluated by editor-in-chief for their originality, methodology, the importance of the subject covered and compliance with the journal scope.  Editor-in-chief evaluates manuscripts for their scientific content without regard to ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation, citizenship, religious belief or political philosophy of the authors and ensures a fair double-blind peer review of the selected manuscripts.The selected manuscripts are sent to at least two national/international external referees for evaluation and publication decision is given by editor-in-chief  upon modification by the authors in accordance with the referees’ claims.Editor in chief does not allow any conflicts of interest between the authors, editors and reviewers and is responsible for final decision for publication of the manuscripts in the Journal.Reviewers’ judgments must be objective. Reviewers’ comments on the following aspects are expected while conducting the review.-    Does the manuscript contain new and significant information?-    Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the manuscript?-    Is the problem significant and concisely stated?-    Are the methods described comprehensively?-    Are the interpretations and consclusions justified by the results?-    Is adequate references made to other Works in the field?-    Is the language acceptable?Reviewers must ensure that all the information related to submitted manuscripts is kept as confidential and must report to the editor if they are aware of copyright infringement and plagiarism on the author’s side.A reviewer who feels unqualified to review the topic of a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the editor and excuse himself from the review process.The editor informs the reviewers that the manuscripts are confidential information and that this is a privileged interaction. The reviewers and editorial board cannot discuss the manuscripts with other persons. The anonymity of the referees is important.

LanguageThe journal accepts articles in Turkish, English, German and French.Manuscript Organization and FormatAll correspondence will be sent to the first-named author unless otherwise specified. Manuscpript is to be submitted online via <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/login" target="_blank">http://dergipark.gov.tr/login</a> that can be accessed at <a href="http://felsefearkivi.istanbul.edu.tr" target="_blank">http://felsefearkivi.istanbul.edu.tr</a>.It must be accompanied by a <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F68E9850D23E44B6AAAA4F21F3ED2805" target="_blank">title page</a> specifying the article category (i.e. research article, review etc.) and including information about the manuscript (see the Submission Checklist), and cover letter. Manuscripts should be prepared in Microsoft Word 2003 and upper versions. In addition, <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/45E23644BDEE41E09BB14937398BF28A" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a> that has to be signed by all authors must be submitted.1. The manuscripts should be in A4 paper standards, written in Times New Roman font style in 12 font size, line spacing of 1.5 and “justify align” format. Footnotes must remain within these limits and be written in 10 font size.2. The manuscripts should contain mainly these components: title, abstract and keywords, sections of article, references and tables and figures. 3. Before the introduction part, there should be an abstract of 200-250 word range. Underneath the abstract, 5 keywords that inform the reader about the content of the study should be specified. 4. Research article sections are ordered as follows: “Introduction”, “(at least two) Text Titles” “Conclusion” and “References”.5. A title page including author information must be submitted together with the manuscript. The title page is to include fully descriptive title of the manuscript and, affiliation, title, e-mail address, postal address, phone, fax number of the author(s) and ORCIDs of all authors (see The Submission Checklist). 6. Authors are responsible for all statements made in their work published in the Journal; Istanbul University has no responsibility in this regard. 7. The author(s) can be asked to make some changes in their articles due to peer reviews.

Author Guidelines

Although references to review articles can be an efficient way to guide readers to a body of literature, review articles do not always reflect original work accurately. Readers should therefore be provided with direct references to original research sources whenever possible. On the other hand, extensive lists of references to original work on a topic can use excessive space on the printed page. Small numbers of references to key original papers often serve as well as more exhaustive lists, particularly since references can now be added to the electronic version of published papers, and since electronic literature searching allows readers to retrieve published literature efficiently. Papers accepted but not yet included in the issue are published online in the Early View section. Citing a “personal communication” should be avoided unless it provides essential information not available from a public source, in which case the name of the person and date of communication should be cited in parentheses in the text. For scientific articles, written permission and confirmation of accuracy from the source of a personal communication must be obtained. Reference Style and FormatArchives of Philosophy – Felsefe Arkivi uses Chicago Manual of Style as reference style. Please use this link for more details: <a href="https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html" target="_blank" style="font-size: 10pt;">https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html</a>Accuracy of citation is the author’s responsibility. All references should be cited in text.Examples:FN: First note, SN: Subsequent note, B: BibliographyBookFN Ayhan Bıçak, Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu (İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2004), 280.SN Bıçak, Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu, 25.B Bıçak, Ayhan. Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2004.FN J. J. C. Smart and Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973), 9.SN Smart and Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against, 82.B Smart, J. J. C. and Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism. For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973.FN Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt and Dennis L. Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options (Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co.,1999), 20.SN Honer, Hunt and Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy, 35.B Honer, Stanley M., Hunt, Thomas C. and Okholm, Dennis L. Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co.,1999.FN Frank Cunningham et al., Philosophy: The Big Questions (Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2003), 15.SN Cunningham et al., Philosophy, 30.B Cunningham, Frank, LaLonde, Daniel, Neelin, David and Peglar, Kenneth. Philosophy: The Big Questions. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2003.Authors who do not have surnames (i.e. Kung Fu Tse), should be listed according to their first names. For example, Kung Fu Tse should enter the bibliography under the letter K. Authors with surnames are listed after their surnames (i.e. Popper, Karl).Translated BookFN Nigel Warburton, Felsefe Okuma Rehberi, trans. Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım (İstanbul: Alfa, 2016), 8-9.SN Warburton, Felsefe Okuma Rehberi, 12.B Warburton, Nigel. Felsefe Okuma Rehberi. Translated by Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım. İstanbul: Alfa, 2016.Chapter of an Edited BookFN Cengiz Çakmak, “Kader İnsanı Suçla Yargılar: ‘Kader ve Karakter’ Üzerine Değiniler”, in Dar Kapıdaki Mesih: Walter Benjamin ve Politik Felsefesi, ed. M .Ertan Kardeş (İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları, 2017), 79.SN Çakmak, “Kader İnsanı Suçla Yargılar: ‘Kader ve Karakter’ Üzerine Değiniler”, 83.B Çakmak, Cengiz. “Kader İnsanı Suçla Yargılar: ‘Kader ve Karakter’ Üzerine Değiniler.” in Dar Kapıdaki Mesih: Walter Benjamin ve Politik Felsefesi. Edited by M .Ertan Kardeş, 79-87. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları, 2017.Preface, Introduction, Etc. of a BookFN Hakkı Hünler ve Solmaz Zelyüt Hünler, preface to Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi  (İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001), XVII.SN Hünler ve Zelyüt Hünler, preface, XVI.B Hünler, Hakkı ve Zelyüt Hünler, Solmaz. Preface to Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi, I-XXIV. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001.E-BookFN Benedict de Spinoza, The Ethics [Part I] July 2, 2019, http://www.gutenberg.org/9/1/919/, 1.E.2.SN Spinoza, The Ethics [Part I], 1.E.9.B Spinoza, Benedict de. The Ethics [Part I]. July 2, 2019. <a href="http://www.gutenberg.org/9/1/919/">http://www.gutenberg.org/9/1/919/</a>.For books consulted online, cite the URL or the name of the database. If no page numbers are available, cite a section or chapter title.Journal ArticleFN Cengiz Çakmak, “Asadan Böceğe: Politik Yargı ve Felsefe,” Felsefe Arkivi 43 (2015), 17.SN Çakmak, “Asadan Böceğe,” 17-18.B Çakmak, Cengiz. “Asadan Böceğe: Politik Yargı ve Felsefe.” Felsefe Arkivi 43 (2015): 17-23.Translated Journal ArticleFN Reinhard Kleinknecht, “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı,” trans. M. S. Genç, Kutadgubilig Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 11 (2007), 20.SN Reinhard, Kleinknecht, “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı,” 22.B Kleinknecht, Reinhard. “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı.” Translated by M. S. Genç. Kutadgubilig Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 11 (2007): 17-44.Online Journal ArticleFN Ahmet Emre Dağtaşoğlu, “Antik Yunan Felsefesinde “Fantasia”nın Epistemolojik Rolü,” flsf (Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi) 17 (2014 Bahar): 266. June 24, 2019.SN Dağtaşoğlu, “Antik Yunan Felsefesinde,” 266-268.B Dağtaşoğlu, Ahmet Emre. “Antik Yunan Felsefesinde “Fantasia”nın Epistemolojik Rolü.” flsf (Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi) 17 (2014 Bahar): 266-287. June 24, 2019.For articles consulted online, cite the URL or the name of the database. If available, specify the DOI (Digital Object Identifier) number.Thesis or DissertationFN Ali Suat Gözcü, “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları”, (PhD diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2016), 28.SN Gözcü, “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları”, 40.B Gözcü, Ali Suat. “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları.” PhD diss., İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2016.Encyclopaedia EntryFN Ahmet Cevizci, “Mutluluk,” Felsefe Sözlüğü, (İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2010), 1130.SN Cevizci, “Mutluluk,” 1131.B Cevizci, Ahmet. “Mutluluk.” Felsefe Sözlüğü: 1130-1131. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2010.Book ReviewFN Aruz İbişi Temelli, “Siyaset Felsefesi,” rewiev of Siyaset Felsefesi, by Luc Ferry-Alain Renaut. Kutadgubilig, Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016), 370.SN İbişi Temelli, “Siyaset Felsefesi,” 371.B İbişi Temelli, Arzu. “Siyaset Felsefesi.” Rewiev of Siyaset Felsefesi, by Luc Ferry-Alain Renaut. Kutadgubilig, Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016): 369-374.Website ContentFN Carl Tollef Solberg ve Espen Gamlund, “How Should We Evaluate Deaths?”, Practical Ethics, July 3, 2019, http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2019/05/guest-post-how-should-we-evaluate-deaths/SN “How Should We Evaluate Deaths?”B Solberg, Carl Tollef ve Gamlund, Espen. “How Should We Evaluate Deaths?” Practical Ethics. July 3, 2019, http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2019/05/guest-post-how-should-we-evaluate-deaths/News or Magazine ArticleFN Takiyettin Mengüşoğlu, “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan,” Cumhuriyet, December 14, 1971, 2.SN Mengüşoğlu, “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan,” 2.B Mengüşoğlu, Takiyettin. “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan.” Cumhuriyet, December 14, 1971.Online News or Magazine ArticleFN “What Consent? Hungary, Poland &amp; Czech Republic Deny Sealing Migrant Deal with Merkel”, Russia Today, June 6, 2018, <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/431382-hungary-poland-czech-migrants/" target="_blank">https://www.rt.com/news/431382-hungary-poland-czech-migrants/</a>SN “What Consent?”B “What Consent? Hungary, Poland &amp; Czech Republic Deny Sealing Migrant Deal with Merkel”, Russia Today, June 6, 2018, <a href="https://www.rt.com/news/431382-hungary-poland-czech-migrants/" target="_blank">https://www.rt.com/news/431382-hungary-poland-czech-migrants/</a>

<div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/45E23644BDEE41E09BB14937398BF28A" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a><a href="http://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/FileHandler2.ashx?f=copyrighttransferformen_litera_636846337884291693.doc"> </a></div><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F68E9850D23E44B6AAAA4F21F3ED2805" target="_blank">Title page</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F9732E150EDC42DB9483FD4CC9C098F4" target="_blank">Author Form</a><ul></ul>

Ensure that the following items are present:● Cover letter to the editorü  The category of the manuscriptü  Confirming that “the paper is not under consideration for publication in another journal”.ü  Including disclosure of any commercial or financial involvement.ü  Confirming that the references cited in the text and listed in the references section are in line with Chicago Manual of Style.ü  Confirming that last control for fluent English was done.ü  Confirming that journal policies detailed in Information for Authors have been reviewed.● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/45E23644BDEE41E09BB14937398BF28A" target="_blank">Copyright Agreement Form</a>● Permission of previous published material if used in the present manuscript● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/F68E9850D23E44B6AAAA4F21F3ED2805" target="_blank">Title page</a>ü  The category of the manuscriptü  The title of the manuscriptü  All authors’ names and affiliations (institution, faculty/department, city, country),e-mail addressesü  Corresponding author’s email address, full postal address, telephone and fax numberü  ORCIDs of all authors.● Main Manuscript Documentü  The title of the manuscriptü  Abstract (250 words)ü  Key words: 5 -10 wordsü  Acknowledgement (if exists)ü  Acknowledgements, grant supports, conflicts of interest should be indicatedü  Referencesü  All tables, illustrations (figures) (including title, description, footnotes)

Issue Type	Regular
Editor(s)	Cengiz Çakmak
Cover (PDF)
Full Text (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)