Faik

Lecturer

There is a growing consensus in philosophy of science that values play an ineliminable role in scientific reasoning. According to Douglas’ (2009) argument from inductive risk, when deciding whether to prioritize avoiding false negatives or false positives in accepting a hypothesis, scientists need to take into the account the social and ethical consequences of these errors. Biddle and Kukla (2017) have argued that epistemic risks exist not just in inductive inferences but also in the construction of scientific models, the operationalization of concepts for scientific research, and data characterization.The ineliminable role of values in science creates various problems for trust in science. As Wilholt (2013) observed, the cognitive division of labor requires scientists to trust other scientists. However, when each scientist makes these value choices themselves, it becomes difficult for scientists to rely on others and coordinate their research. Wilholt has suggested that methodological conventions help overcome this coordination problem by implicitly imposing a set of value choices on scientists. Irzık and Kurtulmus (2019) have drawn attention to the role values have in bringing about public trust in science. They observed that laypeople will have reasons to consider scientists’ value choices when laypeople need to make practical decisions based on science and when values have a bearing on one’s methodological choices in research.&nbsp;While Irzık and Kurtulmus (2019) and Willholt (2013) have discussed the relationship between the role of values in science and trust, they have not offered a normative account of how values should be managed to build public trust in science. This article discusses and evaluates three normative approaches that seek to provide foundations for public trust in science given the ineliminable role of values in science in light of these considerations.&nbsp;John’s (2015) high epistemic standards approach maintains that scientists should only share results with the public that are highly certain. This approach enables members of the public to rely on scientists without having to consider their values, since highly certain results would be of use to them whatever their values happen to be. This approach also helps scientists coordinate their research activities and not have to consider the values of the public when conducting their research. Despite its advantages, this approach has two shortcomings. First, it does not help with all kinds of epistemic risks. For instance, it cannot offer guidance on many of the value choices&nbsp;that need to be made in scientific modeling. Second, it can result in the underutilization of scientific findings when high epistemic standards are unattainable despite the science nevertheless being able to provide useful guidance to the public.According to Schroeder’s (2021) democratic values approach, scientific research should be shaped by the democratic values of a society as determined through democratic processes or surveys. This proposal overcomes both shortcomings of the high epistemic standards approach. It covers all forms of epistemic risk and can also help one make use of science in conditions of uncertainty. However, it has its own problems. The fact that democratic values can be different for each country would make international scientific collaboration more difficult. Given that democratic values can change, Schroeder’s approach also risks creating an intertemporal coordination problem for scientists who need to rely on past research. It also suffers from practical difficulties. Determining the democratic values that should guide scientific research and ensuring that scientists adhere to these values are far from straight forward. The help this approach offers laypeople is also limited. Even if citizens know that research has been conducted in line with democratic values, what this entails for their practical decisions is not easy to tell.Boulicault and Schroeder (2021) offer a hybrid approach that draws from Wilholt’s (2013) insights into the role of methodological conventions, John’s (2015) high epistemic standards approach, and Schroeder’s (2021) democratic values approach. In cases of low practical importance, the high epistemic standards approach should be used. In situations where scientific knowledge is widely accepted as being highly relevant for practical decisions, the democratic values approach should be used. In cases where research is of moderate practical importance or where disagreement exists about its practical importance, methodological conventions developed by scientist should be used.This hybrid approach aims to combine the advantages of all three while avoiding their disadvantages. However, given that the value of the high epistemic standards approach relies on its uniform application, it cannot do that. A second difficulty is that research in one category will employ research from others. Thus, keeping the value choices in the different categories isolated as required by this approach would also be impossible.Although this paper’s primary conclusion is predominantly negative (i.e., none of the examined approaches offer a comprehensive solution), its critical analysis has identified the key criteria a successful solution must fulfill. An effective solution should (a) be applicable by scientists and laypeople who will rely on their findings, (b) enable society to fully utilize available scientific knowledge, (c) address all types of epistemic risks, (d) be compatible with the social structure of science and its cognitive division of labor, and (e) remain incentive-compatible.

Trust in Science in Light of the Role of Values in Science

Tolgahan

According to the principle of compositionality, the meaning of any expression is determined by the meaning of its parts. The principle is based on Gottlob Frege’s analysis of linguistic meaning in the function-argument structure.1 The principle has taken a central role in formal semantics with Richard Montague.2 , 3 The principle of compositionality states that a homomorphism exists between syntactic structure and semantic structure. Let A be a set of expressions and F a set of syntactic operations. Similarly, let B be a set of meanings and G be a set of semantic operations. The principle of compositionality states a homomorphism to exist between the syntactic algebra, , and the semantic algebra, . Therefore, the meaning of an expression that results from applying the syntactic operation4 Fγ on expressions α1 , …, αn is computed as follows:5Meaning (Fγ (α1 , …, αn )) = Gγ (meaning[α1 ), …, meaning(αn ))The proponents of the principle claim that compositionality is the key mechanism behind the systematic and productive structure of languages.6 , 7 Contrary to this view, Wlodek Zadrozny has argued that the compositionality principle does not contribute to the systematic structure of language.8 To justify his claim, Zadrozny put forward proof showing that any semantic structure can be encoded compositionally. Against Zadrozny’s claim is the claim that the obtained compositional semantics cannot preserve the synonymity in the original semantics. This study examines Zadrozny’s proof and answers the objection made over synonymy.In order to express Zadrozny’s proof, one first needs to construct an arbitrarily chosen semantic structure where: M = an arbitrary set of meaningsA = an arbitrary alphabet . = a binary operator S = a set closure of A under the operator (.) m = an arbitrary function from the set S to the set MZadrozny proposed the existence of a set M* and a unique μ function that is defined from S to M*, where μ has the following two properties:1. ∀s ∀t μ (s.t) = μ(s) (μ(t))2. ∀s μ(s) (s) = m(s)The first property shows that for any two expressions s and t, the meaning of their syntactic combination can be computed through these two expressions’ meanings. The meaning of the expression s.t is the function application of s to t. Therefore, μ is a compositional semantic function. The second property shows that the original meaning function m can never recovered. The proof shows that compositionality is a trivial principle. Therefore, compositionality does not make any contribution to the systematicity of languages.An important objection is found against Zadrozny’s claim, one that argues the μ function to be insufficient for encoding the original semantic structure. Therefore, although the μ function is a compositional one, the claim is made that it cannot encode the semantic structure of the original structure. The basis of this claim involves synonymity: Semantic structures that do not comply with the substitution principle cannot be encoded with the μ function.9 , 10, 11 One example of such a semantic structure is Frege’s referential semantics. According to referential semantics, the meanings of expressions are the objects to which they refer. For example, the expressions “the morning star is bright” and “the evening star is bright” refer to the same object:m(“the morning star is bright”) = m(“the evening star is bright”)&nbsp;However, when one of these two expressions replaces the other in any expression S, the object that S refers to may change.12&nbsp;S1 : According to John, the morning star is bright.S2 : According to John, the evening star is bright.Although the meanings of these expressions “the morning star is bright” and “the evening star is bright” are the same, the references of the expressions S1 and S2 may be different. As a result,&nbsp;the compositional semantics need to assign different values to the expressions “the morning star is bright” and “the evening star is bright.” As such, it does not capture the synonymy relation in the original semantics.This paper claims that this notion of synonymity is not a precise one but a pre-theoretical one. It does not need to be reflected in the lexical structure of the encoded semantics. What is expected from encoded semantics is to derive synonymity claims in the original semantics as theorems. In other words, what is expected is not the following identity:μ (“morning star is bright”) = μ (“evening star is bright”)Instead, what is expected is to represent the sameness of their meanings when they are used in extensional contexts.

On the Triviality of the Principle of Compositionality

Hediye

This work focuses on the bourgeois public sphere, which is the field of political opinion and will formation. This study opens the boundaries of the bourgeois public sphere, which are not sensitive to gender equality, to critical discussion without abandoning the concept of the public sphere. The article discusses these boundaries and the political theoretical approaches to counter them under three headings. The first approach looks at inclusive participation versus genderspecific formal exclusion. Gender-specific formal exclusion derives from the social preconditions of equal participation in the bourgeois public sphere being constrained to male property owners. These social preconditions narrow the scope of equal participation. This narrowing of the political sphere prevents the normative principles of the bourgeois public sphere, which are formulated as openness to all, free access, equal participation, and free discourse, from being fully realized in practice. Expanding the narrowed political space is possible with an inclusive participation approach. As a matter of fact, inclusive participation supports the elimination of the formal exclusion that prevents equal participation in the public sphere and also supports the realization of the normative principles of the public sphere to a certain extent in practice.The second approach involves democratic public deliberation against gender-specific informal exclusions. One of the gender-specific informal exclusions is the bracketing of gender-based inequalities in public deliberation processes. This gender-specific informal exclusion takes place even when the bourgeois public sphere is not formally excluded. Therefore, equal participation in the public sphere cannot be reduced to the mere discussion of eliminating formal exclusion but also requires looking at public deliberation processes. This is because the bourgeois model of the public sphere brackets inequalities in the public deliberation processes, so everyone interacts discursively as if they were equals. In reality, however, these processes have unequal participants and work to marginalize women. Conversely, in order to enable some degree of gender-sensitive equal participation, the brackets around gender inequalities should be removed by thematizing and discussing these inequalities in public deliberation processes. In other words, the public sphere should be located in a social context that is undisturbed by unequal relations.Another gender-specific informal exclusion involves the lack of room for different communication styles in public deliberations apart from the rational communication style. The rational communication style may not always be sufficient for exploring the meanings of modern femininity. In order to uncover these meanings, room must be made alongside the rational communication style for non-rational communication styles, which involve multiple forms of everyday communication. Non-rational communication styles contribute to public deliberations in various ways. As one of these communication styles, storytelling is effective for reaching collective judgments by critically rebuilding memory and ensuring accountability. Storytelling is decisive in creating new themes of public interest and embodying justice, as well as facilitating the creation of better arguments and mutual understanding in public discussions. Storytelling connects some suffering with injustice, which is the subject of a more general discussion, and is effective in revealing social knowledge by playing a role in the mutual transfer and translation of experiences and values. It also contributes to a mutual learning that expands thinking. Another non-rational style of communication is rhetoric, which includes the emotional aspects of communication, figures of speech, and different use of symbols. Rhetoric and its impressive, formal, and concrete aspects make public communication more effective and increase mutual understanding and the power to persuade an audience. It helps participants appropriately and understandably communicate their claims and arguments to the audience.In addition to the positive aspects of non-rational communication styles, negative aspects also exist that can disrupt communicative interactions. These negative aspects are associated with strategic action. Strategic action involves people instrumentalizing others to serve their own ends. In strategic action, participants aim to influence those with whom they interact for their own purposes by resorting to methods such as manipulation, deception, pressure, bribery, threats, and coercion. In communicative action and opposite strategic action, participants consider those with whom they are interacting not as a means to their own ends but as the ends in and of themselves, namely as autonomous actors whose capacity to judge must be respected. Of course, this distinction between strategic action and communicative action does not entail giving up the positive aspects of the non-rational modes of communication. Instead, non-rational communication styles should be considered for their positive contribution to public deliberation while also excluding the aspects associated with strategic action.The third approach involves a reconceptualization of the public sphere as opposed to the neglect of the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations. Alternative historiography reveals that the bourgeois model of the public sphere neglects the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations. Alternative historiography also documents the existence of multiple informal publics and inter-public relations through examples that have shown the bourgeois public to not be the whole of the public and women to have different ways of accessing public life. These days, however, public relations are not limited to informal multi-public relations solely for forming opinions. Public relations also encompass formal public spheres that involve both the formation of public opinion and decision-making processes. Formal publics are accountable to informal publics and translate public opinion into laws, thereby increasing the power of public opinion.All three theoretical public approaches to the boundaries of the bourgeois public sphere contribute to the reformulation of equal participation in the public sphere from a gendersensitive perspective. Inclusive participation helps to eliminate gender-specific formal exclusion. Democratic public deliberation plays a role in overcoming gender-specific informal exclusions, and the reconceptualization of the public sphere requires considering the multiplicity of competing publics and inter-public relations.

A Discussion on Equal Participation in the Public Sphere in Terms of Gender Equality

Şilan

Res. Assist.

According to Karatani, Ionia in the 6th century BC had not only established an unprecedented culture but had also heralded the birth of philosophy and practiced an isonomic form of government without domination, one where equality was achieved through freedom. Athens, on the other hand, had a democracy based on nationalism and an unequal model of society. Karatani frames this radical comparison in his own theory of modes of exchange. He tries to read the philosophical relationship between Socrates and Plato by bringing Socrates closer to Ionian philosophy, which he argues represents isonomy, and Plato closer to Pythagoras, thus separating these two philosophers. He concludes that in order to get rid of democracy, Plato had sentenced his teacher Socrates to death. Karatani also finds the solution to defending the philosopher-king hypothesis to have been inspired by the Pythagoreans. However, difficulty is had in determining whether Pythagoras had been the source of Plato’s philosopher-king idea, given the historical record. Difficulty is also had in concluding Socrates to have embraced isonomy and Plato to have been alienated from the isonomic form of government. This is because isonomy meant many things in Athens’ political life, and Plato had even discussed isonomy in his texts. This shows that Plato had no discontent with the basic principles of isonomy. Plato’s concern with democracy stemmed not from his opposition to isonomy in any sense, such as equality before law, citizens acting publicly, the absence of a ruler, or constitutional principles. Plato’s concern instead was based on how he equated isonomy and democracy in terms of producing a radical lack of equality and form.The first section of this article will lay the groundwork for Karatani’s interpretation of isonomy using his own theory of modes of exchange and analyze the reasons for his special&nbsp;interest in Ionia and Socrates. The second section will examine how Ionia and Athens differed in distinguishing between democracy and isonomy. The third section will focus on the meanings of isonomy in some ancient Greek sources and argue Karatani’s isonomy to resolve economic tensions while emphasizing that the historical records he draws on risk turning into speculation by pointing to the need to return to the dialogue in the Republic, where Plato put forth the idea of the philosopher-king. The fourth section will show how Karatani’s strategy for cutting the philosophical link between Plato and Socrates brings Plato closer to Pythagoras and how Karatani as a result tries to understand isonomy and the idea of the philosopher-king through some speculative assumptions rather than through the dialogue in the Republic. One of these speculations involves Plato having acquired the idea of the philosopher-king from Pythagoras. In order to arrive at this conclusion, Karatani has had to rely on the idea of the historical Socrates, an idea that lacks a definitive conclusion. Karatani argues Pythagoras, not Socrates, to have been the source of Plato’s epistemology. By creating a sharp distinction between Plato and Socrates, Karatani removes the basis for considering whether Plato’s ideas on democracy as discussed in an epistemological-political framework are linked to Socrates. Even if one assumes that Karatani’s attempt to consider Plato at an intersection with Pythagoras is justified, the fifth section will argue this assumption to be invalid, given that Plato had actually discussed the isonomic form of government. The last section will attempt to conduct an investigation on Plato’s relevant dialogue in the Republic and suggest that Plato’s reading of democracy should be read not through an equality-freedom dichotomy but rather through a freedom-order dichotomy. In this respect, the study will argue Plato’s negative views on democracy to have instead stemmed from his opposition to the Solonian principle of eunomia (good order).

On the Borders of Ancient Greek History: Karatani and Isonomy

Tonguç

This paper aims to examine epistemologically the noble lie, put forward how serious Plato was concerning the noble lie, and analyze whether the noble lie is sufficient and necessary for the creation of the Callipolis. In this respect, I argued that (i) the noble lie was devised to motivate the educate populace to become philosopher-rulers who work for the good of the Callipolis and its citizens and that (ii) Plato did not expect the noble lie to be sufficient at persuading either the philosopher-rulers or the rest of the citizens about the goodness or advantages of the government of the Callipolis. The noble lie has two basic components: (a) the genetic story (R. 414d1-414e5) and (b) the hierarchical story (R. 415b1-415c7).According to the genetic story, all citizens are earthborn brothers and sisters, and the life one assumes to be living is just some dreamlike state. The target of this claim involves the first generation of citizens, because later generations would no longer be first-degree relatives. Here, one needs to observe that persuading a child about their family and the rest of society being earthborn brothers and sisters is epistemologically different than convincing people that their life experiences are not real. In the latter case, people should accept that they cannot distinguish the real world from the dream world. This stresses the difficulty of persuading people about the noble lie, because they must acknowledge that cognitive apparatuses such as sense perception, memory, and imagination are neither secure nor reliableThe Hierarchical story claims that the souls of the citizens are made out of the distinct metal alloys of gold, silver, or a mix of bronze and iron. A gold citizen naturally belongs to the ruling class, a silver one to the assistants of rulers, and an admixture of iron and bronze to the class of craftsmen and farmers. This story is clearly in line with the tripartite theory of the soul and the classes of society discussed elsewhere in the Republic. In Book IV (436a-444e), Socrates argues that the human soul is divided into three parts (i.e., rational [λογιστικόν], appetitive [ἐπιθυμητικόν], and spirited [θυμοειδές]) and that these three parts correspond to the three classes of society (i.e., the rulers, the auxiliaries, and the farmers and craftsmen).For Socrates, two kinds of stories exist: true (ἀληθές) logoi and false (ψεῦδος) logoi. The false stories are muthoi [myths] (R. 377a4) and also involve two sorts of falsehoods: true falsehood&nbsp;(ἀληθῶς ψεῦδος) and not altogether pure falsehood (οὐ πάνυ ἄκρατον ψεῦδος (R. 382b7-c1). Both the gods and humans hate true falsehoods (R. 382c3-4). Although the gods hate the other type of falsehood, those with cognitive competence can use such lies as a drug and make them beneficial by having them approximate the truth as much as possible (ἀφομοιοῦντες τῷ ἀληθεῖ τὸ ψεῦδος ὅτι μάλισταR. 382c10-d3). Socrates presents “those ancient events involving the gods about which we don’t know the truth (R. 382d1-2)” as an example of not altogether pure falsehoods. Also, the noble lie involves that kind of a story and is not altogether a pure falsehood. Such falsehoods do not harm the soul because only imitate the true lies mirrored in the words (R. 382b9-10). Therefore, the philosopher-rulers’ souls are not harmed because they know the story they are telling to be a falsehood that will benefit the state as a result of their good intentions.Socrates defined the noble lie as a contrivance (R. 414b8, μηχανή). But what roles and meanings could this μηχανή have? The literal meaning of μηχανή is machine. Figuratively, it can also carry the meanings of a scheme or contrivance, as it is used in the famous phrase ἀπὸ μηχανῆς θεός [Deus ex machina]. In the Republic, Plato aims to convince people of the benefit and goodness of the Callipolis, yet he is aware that many will not easily accept his more rational arguments. In this case, Plato has a shortcut solution (i.e., μηχανή/device) up his sleeve: the noble lie. However, to think that Plato prefers rational arguments for persuading people about the Callipolis being the best kind of government would be a reasonable and just thought. In conclusion, Plato tries to convey a philosophical idea with the noble lie, as he often does. The caution that Socrates shows while discussing the noble lie is quite understandable because he may have felt embarrassed about using such a grand /blatant lie regarding the political structure of the Callipolis. In conclusion, the noble lie does not ensure the stable existence of the Callipolis; therefore, it may only be meant to play a small supporting role in explaining and achieving his political ideal.

Lies, Stories, and Arguments: Can A Callipolis Exist Without the Noble Lie?

Zeynep

Aristotle’s Categories is widely accepted for positing a predication theory of being. He constructs his theory by assuming two fundamental ideas: being is said in many ways and being is always being something. Accordingly, he distinguishes substances from non-substances, as well as universals (eidē [species] and genē [genera]) from particulars. Therefore, the way substantial beings are differs from the way non-substantial beings are; with particulars being the essential instances of their species and genera within the same ontological categories. While non-substances are predicated of substances by accidental predication (being in a subject), universals are predicated of particulars by essential predication (being said-of a subject).Although Categories does not mention Plato or doctrine of Forms, this elaborated theory has been considered within the scholarly literature to reflect Aristotle’s anti-Platonic understanding of reality and to provide better answers to certain ontological problems that the theory of Forms (TF) fails at answering. As such, the charges in Categories that are deemed to address TF are as follows: TF cannot explain both the essential and accidental features of things. Moreover, it fails to answer how one thing can have many names, and is closely associated with the notion of bare substratum.In this paper, I defend that this philosophical exegesis can be explicitly read in a passage in Metaphysics1 in which Aristotle criticizes TF. When read in light of Alexander of Aphrodisias’ detailed commentary,2 the passage offers an exceptional opportunity to see how the ideas in Categories can be applied to a critique of TF, thus lending textual evidence to this scholarly reading within the contemporary literature.In this passage I refer to, Aristotle conceives the TF and propounds its deficiencies by assuming the predication theory in Categories: Although Platonists commit themselves to the existence of&nbsp;Forms of both substantial and non-substantial things, their very ideas and principles, together with the necessity of logic, preclude the existence of Forms of non-substances. If TF is true, then, there should only be essential participation (predication). Because Forms are substances, there should be substantial things only. Therefore, TF provides no account regarding the being of nonsubstances and thus contradicts itself. As a result, one can conclude that, unlike Categories and its elaborate explanation on this issue, TF is unable to explain how accidental beings are and, thereby, is bound to turn things into a bundle of substances (the question of how can one thing have many names).Subsequently, the passage in Metaphysics aims to show how TF also fails to account for the essence of things. Although TF limits itself to the existence of the Forms of substances only, it also fails to provide a persuasive relation between the two separate realms where Forms and particulars dwell. If things participate in Forms in an essential way, then the well-known thirdman problem occurs. Hence, if TF is true, things cannot possess essences. In other words, unlike the essential particulars (primary substances) of Categories, the participants in TF are merely contingent things. This conclusion supports the idea that TF is associated with the problematic notion of the bare substratum (the substratum theory of concrete particulars). Said another way and in light of this argument, TF is unable to provide an adequate justification for refusing the substratum theory that states concrete particulars to be the sum of a bare substratum and their extrinsic properties.The passage this study addresses suggests Aristotle’s conception of concrete particulars to have determined his critique of TF. His terminology and how he deals with the problems further support this impression. Alexander of Aphrodisias’ detailed arguments patently clarify that the two charges against TF in Metaphysics stem from the account in Categories. By analyzing this passage, I aim to contribute to the contemporary readings concerning the critical relationship between Plato’s TF and Aristotle’s Categories.

How Does Aristotle’s Categories Criticize the Theory of Forms?

Ahmet

Determining the similarities and differences that occurred between Avicenna and Aristotle is an important study method in the literature on the history of philosophy. In this context, Avicenna can be examined both as an Aristotelian and as an original philosopher by considering his Kitāb al-Shifā [Book of Healing]. This is also true regarding Avicenna’s view of time. Recent research on time has argued Avicenna to have defined time as a magnitude rather than a number. In particular, many texts are found to argue that Avicenna had established the nature of time based on the concept of magnitude. However, the concept of number also held a central position in his understanding of time. Therefore, the claim that Avicenna had perceived time solely as a magnitude is a challenging one. As a result, the concepts of magnitude, measure, and number as existed in Avicenna’s understanding of time also need to be considered. Whether a hierarchical relationship exists between time as a magnitude and time as a number is also worth investigating.While Aristotle had tried to determine the nature of time through its relation to movement, he also sought ways to think of it in terms of units. Aristotle depicted the concepts of priority and posteriority to symbolize the continuity of movement. However, the use of the concept of numbers in the definition of time created the problem of discontinuity regarding categories. In this context, Avicenna’s way of constructing the concept of time can be interpreted as a restructuring by applying Aristotle’s arguments to different contexts in order to eliminate the discontinuity.Aristotle introduced the conceptualization of time as a continuously counted entity in order to resolve the problem of continuity for numbers with time. However, Avicenna did not include the idea that time is a number in the sense of being counted in his definition. now was the understanding of time in Avicenna’s philosophy built upon the concept of numbers. Avicenna is seen to have presented an ambivalent view of the concept of time, which he had based on the concepts of magnitude and numbers. According to the philosopher, however, the former is essential while the latter represents the accidental aspect of time. While numbers constitute one aspect of time, magnitude constitutes another more important aspect of time and is the cause of the qualities that time has.Avicenna made many different arrangements regarding the concept of time. The most important of these was the interpretation of Aristotle’s claim that there is no time when there is no soul counting through Avicenna’s use of celestial spheres and circular motion. Time performs the act of measurement through the continuity provided by cyclical motion. Therefore, time does not require a counting soul in order to exist. The celestial sphere that is the cause of the existence of time moves because of the soul, and that same soul is the perfection of the form of the celestial sphere. Although it does not have the same close causal relationship with the counting soul, the relationship Avicenna established between the soul and time can be understood in this manner.In Avicenna’s system, numbers are replaced by magnitude, thereby downplaying the emphasis that Aristotle and Hellenistic commentators had placed on time being a number in the sense of being counted. According to Avicenna, the attachment of a discontinuous quantity to a continuous quantity is bilaterally possible. In fact, time itself is continuous in terms of quantity. Consequently, motion encompasses both numbers and magnitude, both of which are referred to as time; however, numbers correspond to the accidental aspect of time, whereas magnitude denotes its quantity. The continuity of motion and time is ensured by celestial motion, thus enabling the measurement of other motions. Therefore, Avicenna’s interpretation of the concept of time aimed to explain that attaching illusory discontinuities such as month, year, and day to time does not make it inherently discontinuous. Therefore, this study has examined the claim that adding a discontinuity to time does not make time discontinuous.

Avicenna’s Interpretation of the Aristotelian Concept of Time

Baran

When one asks and tries to answer any question about newborns and animals, one has a set of assumptions, most of which are implicit. The most important of these concerns the fundamental features that make human beings human and that distinguish humans from other living beings. In other words, if one were to have a sharply defined answer to the question of what makes a human being human, this answer would also become the answer to a set of questions about newborns and animals. For instance, if one were to say, “One of the most important features that makes human beings human or that at least distinguish humans from other living beings is language and the ability to learn language,” this statement would essentially leads one to the assumption based on this that a newborn baby and a kitten as an example have not only developed but also not developed, due to development being considered learning or being able to learn a language, and as a result being able to communicate and think using language. The purpose of this paper is to question the fundamental assumptions and starting points such as for the aforementioned example of studies on consciousness (particularly in regard to newborns and animals), of language, and of philosophy and psychology in general and to offer criticisms and suggestions within the framework of the conception of transcendence as recently developed by Yalçın Koç (Theologia’nın Esasları [The Principles of Theologia]). Lastly, the study will address the relationship between having an experience and constructing a system of thought about having an experience in its broadest sense, as well as the possibility of making this a science. Within Koç’s framework of the conception of transcendence, a newborn baby is transcendent, whereas an adult individual is descendant. Following the birth of the transcendent, the psyche descends and narrows by passing through certain stages. Koç explains this descendance and narrowing according to some recent research in the field of developmental psychology as being essentially caused by the narrowing of cognitive faculties in the process of language learning.Therefore, this study aims to point out the shortcomings of consciousness and language studies concerning newborns and animals by looking at Yalçın Koç’s (Theologia’nın Esasları [The Principles of Theologia]) understanding of the concepts of transcendent and transcendence. For&nbsp;instance, the fact that studies on consciousness concerning newborns and animals do not take into account factors such as transcendence, language, memory, and uniqueness of experience is a crucial shortcoming, regardless of the discipline from which they are approached. As has already been mentioned, the assumptions and starting points of consciousness studies have not been questioned sufficiently, and for this reason, intractable problems have led to new problems, especially since Descartes. In this case, this article must first open its starting points up to discussion and then carefully conduct the investigation using an interdisciplinary holistic approach. Koç’s books (Theologia’nın Esasları [The Principles of Theologia], 2008), (Theographia’nın Esasları [The Principles of Theographia], 2009) and (Theogonia’nın Esasları [The Principles of Theogonia], 2010)) are seminal in many fields due to how they focus on newborn babies being transcendent rather than descendent as in adult individuals, which is how most of the research has been done thus far. One can regard Koç’s books in general as an investigation into the question of what kind of a picture would emerge if transcendence were taken as the foundation. In one sense, this question can be applied to all of his books. For instance, his 2013 book on logic titled Nazari Mantık’ın Esasları [The Principles of Theoretical Logic] could be regarded as an investigation into the question of what kind of a picture of logic would emerge if one were to take the transcendent as the foundation. A similar case applies to Koç’s other books, such as his book on music (Nazari Musiki’nin Esasları [The Principles of Theoretical Music], 2011) or history (Tarih ve Nazariyat [History and Theoria], 2015). Therefore, Koç in short criticizes all the research that has been conducted on a descendent-based approach and presents a transcendent-based holistic and systematic approach.

Deficiencies in Consciousness Studies on Newborns and Animals from Yalçın Koç's Perspective of Transcendence: Transcendence, Language and the Uniqueness of Experience

Ekin

Elif

The cognitive aspect of metaphors has begun to be studied more systematically since the 20th century, with the conceptual metaphor theory put forward by Lakoff and Johnson1 being a turning point in this regard. While conceptual metaphor theory has been used in many disciplines for various purposes and approaches, the number of such studies in the field of classical philology is relatively limited. This theory places metaphors at the heart of humans’ meaning-making system and argues metaphors to be the product of a cognitive process preceding linguistic expression. In this respect, metaphors in all texts, including ancient texts, can be analyzed and interpreted within the framework of this theory.This study summarizes the conceptual metaphor theory along with its main problematics and analyzes certain subjective time metaphors in various Latin poems within the framework of this theory. The study generally aims to demonstrate how conceptual metaphor theory provides new and fruitful interpretative possibilities in Latin poetry criticism. On the other hand, the study also attempts to draw attention to certain similarities and differences regarding the basic functioning of metaphors by considering different types of poems and limiting the analysis to the concept of time. In so doing, the study questions the view that metaphors are only a matter of rhetoric within the limits of the field. In the attempt to demonstrate through examples of time metaphors selected from Latin poetry, the revised version of the conceptual metaphor theory is believed to be able to contribute significantly to the multifaceted reading of metaphors in ancient poetry.Time is a concept that has been studied by various disciplines, with countless models attempting to explain it. In this regard, although time cannot be reduced to a single definition, some of its features are clearly commonly understood by all. On the other hand, quite subjective descriptions and definitions of time also are found. To put differently, while humans have brought common definitions to time by dividing it into years, months, days, and other smaller common units and by&nbsp;measuring it with tools such as calendars and clocks, people also perceive time more individually and abstractly according to one’s own traits, living conditions, and experiences and express time subjectively.Due to time being an abstract concept that is relatively difficult to define, this article believes the metaphors of time in poetry can be explained more efficiently in the context of conceptual metaphor theory, which focuses on the relationship between the abstract and the concrete. Previous studies in this vein have generally analyzed metaphors of time in Latin in the general context of the language and culture2 and not specifically in the context of its poetic tradition. These studies have provided general frameworks for how time was perceived in Roman culture. For example, time was imagined as an entity moving toward a person, or as a space through which a person would move and travel by crossing a succession of points. Latin has both metaphors that reflect the idea of linear movement along the horizontal plane that are expressed by words meaning front/back (forward/ backward, etc.), as well as metaphors for movement in the vertical plane that are expressed as up/ down (high/low, above/below, etc.).On the other hand, the metaphors in poems provide a better basis for exploring the relationship between the cultural dimension of metaphors and their individual and literary aspects. Because presenting an exhaustive corpus that covers the entirety of Latin poetry is impossible due to the scale of the study, the paper will instead attempt to make a representative selection mainly from the Augustan poetry, as this will allow some insightful observations within the frame of conceptual metaphor theory about the way metaphors on the subjective perception of time were formed in these poems.For instance, although time seems to have two measures (e.g., sunset and sunrise, life and death) in some of Catullus’ verses, time is actually defined according to the presence or absence of his lover Lesbia. Unlike most who associate sunset with absence of light, sleep, despair, and death, sunset is for Catullus or his narrator the time to enjoy life because he meets Lesbia. Likewise, while sunrise is usually associated with light, wakefulness, hope, and life, it is the time when Lesbia leaves, thus meaning to him the opposites of these positive notions. In short, Catullus divided time into two sections: one that starts with meeting Lesbia, and the other that starts when she leaves. For the examples from Horace or his persona, time is an obstacle, because time is equated with getting old and is accompanied by death. The coming of death deprives man of many worldly pleasures. In contrast, the examples from Ovid emphasize the importance of time and opportunity, especially for the lover, and state that time flows differently for men and women. For men, time is a tangible entity that has to be observed, and one has to anticipate the right moment for each action. For women, time is a process in which a negative change (i.e., the loss of youth and beauty) occurs. The examples from Tibullus, on the other hand, do not refer to the past, and the future for Tibullus or his narrator will bring nothing but old age and ultimately death. Time flows rapidly and cannot be stopped, and humans have limited time to fall in love.

Counting Grains of Sand: A Glance at the Subjective Perception of Time in Latin Poetry from the Perspective of Conceptual Metaphor

Cengiz

Prof.

CALL FOR PAPERS

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Muhsin

Art as a Procedure of Signification

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.

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.

DOAJ

SOBIAD

The Philosopher’s Index

@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

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

DOAJSOBİADThe Philosopher’s Index

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.

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.

<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 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 ve Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973), 9.SN Smart ve Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against, 82.B Smart, J. J. C. ve Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism. For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973.FN Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt ve Dennis L. Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options (Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co.,1999), 20.SN Honer, Hunt ve Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy, 35.B Honer, Stanley M., Hunt, Thomas C. ve Okholm, Dennis L. Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co.,1999.FN Frank Cunningham vd., Philosophy: The Big Questions (Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2003), 15.SN Cunningham vd., Philosophy, 30.B Cunningham, Frank, LaLonde, Daniel, Neelin, David ve 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, çev. Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım (İstanbul: Alfa, 2016), 8-9.SN Warburton, Felsefe Okuma Rehberi, 12.B Warburton, Nigel. Felsefe Okuma Rehberi. Çeviren Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım. İstanbul: Alfa, 2016.Chapter of an Edited BookFN Cengiz Çakmak, “Kader İnsanı Suçla Yargılar: ‘Kader ve Karakter’ Üzerine Değiniler”, Dar Kapıdaki Mesih: Walter Benjamin ve Politik Felsefesi içinde, Der. 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.” Dar Kapıdaki Mesih: Walter Benjamin ve Politik Felsefesi. Derleyen M .Ertan Kardeş, 79-87. İstanbul: İthaki Yayınları, 2017.Preface, Introduction, Etc. of a BookFN Hakkı Hünler ve Solmaz Zelyüt Hünler, Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi adlı kitabına sunuş (İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001), XVII.SN Hünler ve Zelyüt Hünler, sunuş, XVI.B Hünler, Hakkı ve Zelyüt Hünler, Solmaz. Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi adlı kitabına sunuş, I-XXIV. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001.E-BookFN Benedict de Spinoza, The Ethics [Part I] Erişim 2 Temmuz 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]. Erişim 2 Temmuz 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,” çev. 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.” Çeviren 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. Erişim 24 Haziran 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. Erişim 24 Haziran 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”, (Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2016), 28.SN Gözcü, “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları”, 40.B Gözcü, Ali Suat. “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları.” Doktora tezi, 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,” Kutadgubilig. Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016), 370.SN İbişi Temelli, “Siyaset Felsefesi,” 371.B İbişi Temelli, Arzu. “Siyaset Felsefesi.” Kutadgubilig. Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016): 369-374.Website ContentFN Carl Tollef Solberg ve Espen Gamlund, “How Should We Evaluate Deaths?”, Practical Ethics, erişim 03 Temmuz 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. Erişim 03 Temmuz 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, 14 Aralık 1971, 2.SN Mengüşoğlu, “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan,” 2.B Mengüşoğlu, Takiyettin. “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan.” Cumhuriyet, 14 Aralık 1971.Online News or Magazine ArticleFN “What Consent? Hungary, Poland &amp; Czech Republic Deny Sealing Migrant Deal with Merkel”, Russia Today, 30.06.2018, erişim 30.06.2018). <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, 30.06.2018, erişim 30.06.2018). <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)

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