@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

CALL FOR PAPERS

Eylem

From within the phenomenological movement, criticism has often been directed at phenomenology’s commitment to Cartesian philosophy and its transcendental character. An example of such criticism has recently been presented by Claude Romano, who views transcendental phenomenology as a subjective philosophy and characterises his own phenomenology as “realist”. According to Romano, phenomenology should not and cannot be transcendental. I argue against Romano’s claim and defend that a transcendental phenomenology is possible and that phenomenology, if it is to be an original philosophy, must be transcendental. The first section is devoted to the claim that the Cartesian character of early Husserlian phenomenology and its transcendental turn resulted from taking scepticism seriously. Romano argues that what led Husserl to transcendental phenomenology was his belief that the task of philosophy is to ground the sciences in the face of scepticism and his assumption that there is an irreducible ontological distinction between consciousness and reality, based on this universal doubt. However, Romano stated that the sciences do not need philosophy to ground their truths; this is already an outdated idea. Secondly, the fact that we can doubt a singular perception does not make us doubt our perception and the existence of the world as a whole. On the contrary, any illusion is possible only on the basis of the continuity and permanence of a structurally coherent world. If the sciences can solve all their problems without the help of philosophy, and if a universal doubt is already impossible, then phenomenology does not have to be a transcendental philosophy based on the cogito. Moreover, Romano argues that transcendental phenomenology is not even possible, since it tries to bring together three incompatible theses –realism, dualism, and transcendentalism. In the following sections, I will attempt to explain why Romano’s criticisms are unjustified. The second section is devoted to showing how the theses that Romano claims incompatible can be reconciled and together make a transcendental phenomenology possible. Phenomenology claims to overcome the traditional distinction between appearance and reality through its own notion of phenomena. In this approach, what manifests itself is the thing itself, there is no reality behind its manifestation to which we have no access. Phenomenological intentionality, on the other hand, is to be understood as a mutually constitutive relation or correlation between consciousness and the world on the basis of a factual contact between a sufficiently developed organism and the Earth. Correlation itself precedes consciousness and the world, both of which become what they are by differentiating from each other and within themselves through various syntheses. Taking all this into account, it is possible for phenomenology to be both “realist” and transcendental, and at the same time to recognise the ontological difference between consciousness and worldly objects. The third section deals with the universal epoché that reveals the consciousness-world correlation beyond the idea of a limited epoché that leads to pure and absolute consciousness. In this way, consciousness is only one of the constitutive elements of a transcendental sphere in which we can consider the mutual constitution of consciousness and the world at different levels. The fourth section argues that Husserl’s main interest in scepticism has to do with the historical role assigned to scepticism, depending on the original idea of philosophy as a universal, rigorous and first science. According to Husserl, true philosophy begins as a theory of knowledge in the face of sceptical attacks about the possibility of knowledge, and then necessarily develops into an ontology understood as the science of being. Just as philosophy undertakes the task of grounding scientific knowledge in terms of its possibility, it also undertakes the task of revealing the conditions of possibility for the existence of the world and of the objects, which the sciences take as given from the outset. Thus, philosophy will precede and ground all other sciences, both epistemologically and ontologically. The final section shows that transcendental phenomenology, with its own method and theme, is the only genuine philosophy capable of overcoming scepticism and realising the original idea of philosophy. For phenomenology opens a transcendental sphere with the universal epoché which is imposed by scepticism. By describing the essential structures of correlation operating in this sphere, it can elucidate the conditions of possibility of all beings and their knowledge, and thus epistemologically and ontologically ground all sciences. In conclusion, for Husserl, taking scepticism seriously is not a Cartesian project and ideal, but a matter directly related to what philosophy is and should be at its origin. Phenomenology’s originality depends on its transcendental character, as long as it is not understood as an idealist position against realism, but as a position that investigates the conditions of possibility of objects and their objective knowledge in their relation to subjectivity in the face of all forms of objectivism.

Must Phenomenology be Transcendental?

Alper

Following advancements in physics, 19th-century thinkers strongly endorsed the idea of the scientific method as the only path to attaining knowledge. This view, which has significant philosophical implications, was termed scientism in the 20th century. Beyond epistemology, it fosters materialistic attitudes toward ontological, axiological, and religious understandings. The proponents of scientism argued that non-natural scientific disciplines should also be scientized. One method of elucidating scientism is to evaluate the epistemological foundations underlying this perspective. The uniqueness of scientism, which includes ontological and axiological attitudes as well as social, political, moral, and religious interpretations, lies in its proposed solution to the epistemological problem of knowledge. Scientism, as a materialistic approach, presupposes material reality. This makes epistemic concerns about the possibility of true knowledge comprehensible. The term ‘epistemic concern’, as used in this article, goes further from the question of the nature of knowledge to worries about the reliability of the elements used in the justification of propositions. Epistemological scientism seeks to address these concerns by identifying reliable basis for propositions while avoiding metaphysical assumptions. The scientific method is considered reliable because it is rooted in material reality, and the processes of forming scientific propositions are regarded as reliable because of their connection to reality. In addressing epistemic concerns, scientism adopts an externalist approach, emphasizing the importance of psychological processes triggered by external stimuli in the formation of knowledge rather than focusing on subjects’ access to cognitive elements. In other words, proponents of scientism overlook epistemic norms, principles, and standards, focusing instead on the reliable or warranted outcomes of experiments. Because the norms employed in traditional epistemology are not based on empirical evidence. In the context of the question of what can truly be known, epistemic concerns emerge from the expectation that knowledge should have an objective external foundation. The epistemic regress problem presents challenges in justifying metaphysical propositions through appeals to a priori principles. Consequently, the scope of genuine knowledge is often considered to be limited to material reality, which can be apprehended through perception and objective experimentation. Within this framework, the resolution of epistemic concerns is sought through the establishment of a reliable, logically structured process for acquiring knowledge, rather than solely addressing the conditions under which the subject is justified. In summary, this reliable knowledge acquisition method aligns with the scientific method as a means of attaining understanding. This perspective establishes methodological boundaries for disciplines beyond the natural sciences, influencing philosophy, humanities, and social sciences. This article examines the foundations of these limitations and draws philosophical conclusions using a philosophical analysis method. For this reason, it begins by emphasizing scientism, highlighting its central role in the problem of knowledge. It argues that scientism is fundamentally rooted in an epistemic concern, which arises from the question, “How can we know that we know?”. This concern represents the quest for a solid foundation to support the reliability of knowledge acquisition processes. Since the core elements of human beliefs—such as perception and sensation—are derived from reality and objectivity, reliability is considered a characteristic of empirical investigation. The relationship between the ontology of scientism and the externalist approach of epistemological scientism has a central position in this analysis. Therefore, after the general epistemological analysis, epistemological scientism and epistemological naturalism are evaluated in the context of externalism. This evaluation&nbsp;focuses on three key challenges facing scientistic epistemology: normativity, metaphysical judgments, and a priori propositions. This article explores these issues within the context of externalism and analyzes their implications for addressing epistemic concern. In conclusion, this paper argues that externalist stance and epistemological scientism, as a kind of it, do not effectively address the issues surrounding epistemic concern. This is because the norms of knowledge and rationality cannot be overlooked in the externalist framework. Additionally, both the presence of metaphysical presuppositions in scientific practice and theory and the role of a priori knowledge must be acknowledged. These factors pose significant challenges to defending scientism and the externalist position in the context of epistemic concern. Since the initial problem of epistemic concern remains unresolved, scientism will continue to encounter logical difficulties.

A Critical Evaluation on the Epistemological Externalist Ground of Scientism in the Context of Epistemic Concern

Fatma

This article analyzes the truth conditions of hypothetical propositions (qaḍiyya sharṭiyya) in Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī’s logic system and whether these propositions are truth functional or not. Truth functional compound propositions contain truth functional logical connectives and their truth values are determined based on the truth values of their components. On the other hand, non-truth-functional compound propositions are propositions whose truth values are not determined according to the truth values of their components. al-Rāzī’s theory of hypothetical propositions falls under propositional logic, as it examines new propositions formed by combining others through logical connectives and analyzes the relations between their components. However, does this theory also belong to truth functional propositional logic, which is the most comprehensive branch of propositional logic? This question, which points to the purpose of the article, is addressed in the context of conditional propositions (qaḍiyya sharṭiyya muttasila) in the first section and disjunctive conditional propositions (qaḍiyya sharṭiyya munfaṣila) in the second section. In these two chapters, first, the types of conditional and disjunctive conditional propositions according to al-Rāzī are briefly explained, followed by al-Rāzī’s explanations of the truth conditions of each of these propositions. In the first section, the problem is examined in two sub-sections for implicative (luzūmiyya) and coincidental (ittifāqiyya) conditional propositions.According to al-Rāzī, implicative conditional propositions may be either true or false when the truth values of their antecedents and consequents are true and true, false and false, or false and true, respectively. The fact that the truth value of implicative conditional propositions may also be false when their components have these truth values distinguishes implicative conditional propositions from material conditionals. This is because material conditionals are necessarily true when the components have these truth values. The reason of this difference between implicative conditional propositions and material conditionals is the relation of implication (luzūm) that must exist between the antecedent and consequent in implicative conditional propositions. In other words, according to al-Rāzī, implicative conditional propositions mean that the antecedent necessarily entails its consequent and as a result, an implicative conditional proposition cannot be true if the antecedent does not necessarily entail the consequent even if they are both true. According to al-Rāzī coincidental conditional propositions are truth functional because they do not carry the meaning of implication. However, they also do not have the meaning of material implication, as a coincidental conditional proposition with a false antecedent and a false consequent is false.al-Rāzī categorizes disjunctive conditionals into three types: (i) Real disjunctive conditionals (ḥaqīqiyya): According to al-Rāzī, real disjunctive conditionals are propositions in which one component is contradiction of the other. Since it is impossible for two mutually contradictory propositions, such as p and not p, to be true at the same time, one of the components of real disjunctive conditional propositions must be true and the other false. (ii) Mani‘at al-jam‘ disjunctive conditionals are propositions in which one of the components has a narrower scope than the contradiction of the other. (iii) Mani‘at al-ḥuluv disjunctive conditionals are propositions in which one component has a broader scope than the contradiction of the other. In mani‘at al-jam‘ disjunctive conditionals, all components can be false but cannot all be true. Conversely, in mani‘at al-ḥuluv disjunctive conditionals, all components can be true but cannot all be false. In conclusion, according to al-Rāzī, the meanings of disjunctive conditional propositions are determined by the law of non-contradiction. Therefore, the truth values of the components of disjunctive conditional propositions are not the only condition for determining the truth values of these propositions. When determining the truth value of these propositions, we consider not only the truth values of the components but also whether the conflict (ʿinād) relationship mentioned by al-Rāzī exists between the components. This shows that the types of disjunctive conditional propositions are also not truth functional.

Truth Conditions of Hypothetical Propositions According to Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī

Ahmet

Migration, one of the predominant issues of our contemporary world, is a human movement that, despite its disruptive nature, plays a foundational role in the formation of human culture. Before the entrenched concepts of society, state, citizenship, and homeland, there lies migration, whose problematic status in today’s world needs to be critically questioned. This study draws an analogical relationship between migration, often perceived as a problem to be eradicated, and the passive and reductionist material approaches in classical materialist views. This relationship is highlighted through the ideas of Georges Bataille, emphasizing the cyclical nature of dualistic approaches such as problem-solution and cause-effect. Consequently, Bataille’s notion of base materialism, which focuses on the irreducible aspects of matter, allows for considering migration not as an external threat but as an integral part of internal, or homogeneous, human culture. Approaching migration movements through Bataille’s base materialism necessitates focusing on the formless aspect of matter, contrary to the matter-form dualism. Explicitly, the term “base” in Bataille’s materialism, which includes meanings of baseness and vileness, should be understood as a counteraction against the conceptual idealism in classical materialist views. Bataille illustrates the foundational function of the human toe dipped in mud to emphasize the grounding role of matter, in contrast to the overemphasis on the head, symbolizing reason and authority in modern civilization. This perspective critiques the tendency to disregard foundational but lowly perceived elements that significantly contribute to human culture and civilization. This study examines migration through the lens of Bataille’s base materialism, exploring concepts such as irreducibility, logical difference, baseness, and active matter. The primary objective is to investigate what insights and conclusions might be derived when Bataille’s perspective is applied to migration, particularly through the example of refugees. By employing Bataille’s ideas, this study argues that base materialism provides a conducive framework for understanding migration movements as a foundational element rather than merely a problem to be solved. Bataille’s dualistic and relational dialectical dynamic (homogeneous/heterogeneous, mana/taboo, etc.) aims to reveal a similar dualistic relationship between the nation-state and migration. The prevalent understanding of migration as a problem is often one-sided, focusing on migration itself. From a broader perspective, the notion that a solution requires a problem is explored through the dialectic relationships of form and matter, master and slave, as interpreted by Bataille as an alternative to Hegelian idealism. Staying true to this perspective, the cyclical nature of reconciliation is examined through the homogeneous/heterogeneous dichotomy, emphasizing the political nature of the problem itself. This suggests that migration can be seen as a form of self-critique of the nation-state and society. In the homogeneous system where matter is grounded by form, the dialectical relationship between these concept pairs implies that the solution does not create the problem. This draws attention to the possibility of using the problem as a rational tool of homogeneous power in the practical derivatives of the heterogeneous. This can be understood as an alternative interpretation of the state’s self-identity in Hegelian philosophy when re-examined through Bataille’s concept pairs of heterogeneous/homogeneous. When these concepts are applied to the terms nation-state and migration, the state rationalizes its existence around the nation, functionalizing the nation as its meaning (elevated heterogeneity/sacredness). Thus, while the state regulates its taboos that threaten its homogeneity through laws, elevated national values manifest as right-wing heterogeneity. The state’s ideals, established for grounding homogeneous productivity, are violated by left-wing, base heterogeneity. However, homogeneity creates the extreme or wasteful heterogeneous elements it designates as threats. Reducing everything to productivity and economic utility also determines which elements are considered threats based on homogeneous functionality. The tension between the nation-state’s homogeneity and migration is framed by identifying migration as a crisis and a threat, stemming from state-originated decisions. The state creates migration as a threat while integrating this base, left-wing heterogeneity into the right-wing heterogeneity it justifies. This duality reveals the tension between the elevated heterogeneity of the right-wing and the unassimilable base heterogeneity of the left-wing. Thus, the issue of migration, particularly through refugees, signifies the irreducible and sensitive left-wing heterogeneity that the homogeneous system cannot assimilate. In this context, the relationship between causality dissolves, and one does not become the problem or solution of the other. The fixed ideal perspective of seeing migration as a problem is a judgment of the abstraction method emphasized in base materialism. Therefore, approaches proposing the solution of migration as a problem by the nation-state resemble the dynamic of abstracting and subjugating the impossible in idealist/materialist presuppositions. Bataille’s perspective, free from fixed constants, highlights the transformative aspect of threats in coexistence, showing that migration cannot be merely dismissed as a surplus needing elimination, reform, or integration.

A Bataillean Perspective on Migration and the Nation-State: The Politics of Active Matter as an Irreducible Force

Kutlu

Value in Marx: A Reading of the Grundrisse

Osman

On the Philosophical Roots of the Naïve and Axiomatic Set Theories: Determinatio est Negatio

Arman

Singular Predication and the Syllogism

Arif

Hegel in Jena: Dialectics of Time

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

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.

Cengiz

Prof. Dr.

ERIH PLUS

TR Dizin

DOAJ

SOBIAD

The Philosopher’s Index

Gale Cengage

@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

English Language Editor

Publicity Manager

Editorial Board Member

Advisory 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

<a href="https://doaj.org/toc/2667-7644" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;">DOAJ</a><a href="https://atif.sobiad.com/index.jsp?modul=journals-detail&amp;ID=SlSrVIMBYqxAIGX2FeqQ" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;">SOBİAD</a>The Philosopher’s Index<a href="https://kanalregister.hkdir.no/publiseringskanaler/erihplus/periodical/info.action?id=502891" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;">Erih Plus</a><a href="https://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/dergi/detay/3621/felsefe-arkivi" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;">TR Dizin</a><a href="https://go.gale.com/ps/dispAdvSearch.do?userGroupName=anon~84c5a0c7&amp;prodId=AONE" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;">Gale Cengage</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/B3A1464BE32345158541A71384ABA89A" 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/A649FB6CFD7C4DD89F9AD5FFB505FB8F" 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/JTA6CLJ8T5/5DF1F7970A504442A778A3E80863D9FF" 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)

Archives of Philosophy

EARLY VIEW

SHARE