Margarita

Prof.

Loving Gaze and Accurate Knowledge

Çağdaş

Assoc. Prof.

People’s concessions about human nature also determines their positioning with regard to social incidents. For example, when one assumes human beings to be unconscious masses behaving only for their own profit, being reckless toward the injustices they encounter and underestimating their suffering becomes easier. One would assume the bother felt by any piece of the invaluable mass to be deserved, and the only reasonable action at this point would be to pull oneself out of this insignificant pain. However, even simply giving importance to human existence allows one to feel the sensed misery within the self and to try to terminate it. Therefore, if one feels that the injustices one witnesses should be terminated, one’s thoughts about human nature must contain hope so as not to assume these injustices to be deserved for humans. For this purpose, one would need to remove the obstacles prevent them from empathizing with other people and developing common sense. One of humans’ most important supports for removing these obstacles is to give up the tendency of considering humans as being evil by nature.	This study will evaluate Rousseau’s ideas on human nature and compare them with Nietzsche’s thoughts about the topic, which appear to be in contrast with Rousseau’s ideas. Paying attention to the articles by Rousseau and Nietzsche will let one perhaps become aware of the disgust they had felt from the hypocritical actions they’d encountered. One may also observe how their efforts to get rid of this would coalesce with nature as well as the individual nature of human beings. However, the survival of human beings in equality, whom Rousseau had described as possessing complete existence in the state of nature, caused his invitation to return to nature to include an invitation to a more equalitarian organization. In contrast, Nietzsche comprehended nature as containing every unjust and unfair deed which was affirmed by this state. Thus, individuals try to generate a justification for their selfishness by using Nietzsche’s ideas, which actually went completely against Nietzsche’s objectives. Therefore, as one frequently encounters during their era, invalidating the effort to generate excuses to legitimize human insensitivity as a result of the thoughts of philosophers such as Nietzsche carries vital priority. In this context, the article will discuss these philosophers not only in terms of their differences, but also more intensively in terms of their similarities. The study will attempt to invalidate every ideational effort at legitimizing conditions unsuitable for human beings.	The points upon which these two philosophers shared broadly similar views can form the basis for actions aimed at improving social order and correcting injustices, despite their understanding of human nature differing. While Rousseau was seen more clearly to express good intentions regarding humanity, one cannot say that Nietzsche’s thoughts had paved the way for only keeping human beings captive to the conditions they are in or to be deserving of the injustices they suffer. This is because both philosophers revealed the illusory nature of the sheltered conditions of freedom in which humans find themselves; as a result, they have assigned humans the duty of transforming the necessities upon which they depend into a form they will love. In this context, making general will a part of one’s own destiny should not be considered contradictory, nor should the thought that we submit to rationality on one hand and nature on the other while adapting individual will to it be considered contradictory. In the history of thought, the hope that humans will be freed from the bondage of their own selfishness and completely isolate themself from the passions of self-interest is considered the fundamental common ground one has with other people.	Nevertheless, the attempt in the study must be said to not be aimed at proving that the positive and benevolent aspects of humans in the natural state are irresistibly valid, as based on Rousseau. Opinions that fully affirm the natural state may be a fiction, as much evidence in support of this can be found throughout history. What matters, though, is what this fiction serves.

An Overview of Rousseau’s and Nietzsche’s Approaches Regarding Their Thoughts on The State of Nature and Socialization

Asım

Res. Assist.

The great chain of being is an ontological conception in which all beings, from inanimate things to God, are ranked on a scale according to their perfectness. This hierarchical scheme, though widely known in the history of ideas, was systematically addressed by Arthur Lovejoy in 1936. The great chain of being as formulated by Lovejoy is composed of three main principles, whose roots can be found in Plato and Aristotle’s philosophies. These principles are “the principle of plenitude”, “the principle of gradation” and “the principle of continuity.” The first principle, the principle of plenitude, was pointed out in Plato’s philosophy and the latter two, the principle of gradation and the principle of continuity, were addressed in Aristotle’s philosophy. According to Lovejoy, these three principles were systematically addressed in Plotinus’s philosophy and became an essential part of Neo-Platonic cosmology. Platon explains the abundance of beings with reference to the absolute goodness of the God in his famous book&nbsp;Timaios. Accordingly, God has absolute goodness and this attribution has given rise to an abundance of beings as goodness requires the existence of things. The other two principles, the principle of gradation and the principle of continuity, were forwarded by Aristotle and through his works affected Western thought. While the principle of gradation refers to the ranking of beings in a chain based on the criteria of their perfection, the principle of continuity is the natural consequence of that ranking in that all beings share at least a minimum level of similarity. Plotinus synthesized and systematized those three principles as an expression of ranked beings specific to emanation theory and added three hypostasis -One, Nous, and Soul- in addition to the natural world addressed in Aristotle’s works. Therefore, we see that beings were ranked from inanimate things to God in Plotinus’s works. This concept of hierarchical order of beings, the great chain of being, affected many cultures and philosophical ideas from Classical Islamic philosophy to the Western tradition. In this article, we confine our subject to only Western thought, including Medieval Christian theology and philosophy, the Renaissance period, and the Age of Enlightenment as well as a peculiar implication and interpretation of the great chain of being specific to modern times. In every period we will deal with just one thinker and their ideas to demonstrate the effect of the great chain of being on those thinkers’ philosophies and systems. In this context, we examined how Thomas Aquinas used the great chain of being to justify some theological and philosophical matters and tried to show how he utilized the principle of continuity effectively to explain the relationship between matter and soul. Marcilio Ficino, a Neo-Platonist philosopher of the Renaissance period, also used the great chain of being to explain the hierarchical order of beings and their ontological relationship to the perfect being, which is God, placing them in a rising line according to their closeness to God. On the other hand, when we come to the Age of Enlightenment we see that the great chain of being continues to be apparent in some philosophical works. One example is John Locke’s famous book&nbsp;An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Here Locke tries to make sense of the existence of many species of spirits with reference to the great chain of being, especially by using the principle of continuity. This attempt of justification shows us that the great chain of being, as an old philosophical and ontological concept, was still used even in the Enlightenment. Finally, it would be beneficial to address how the chain of being in question was presented and understood in modern times. Unlike the justification of some philosophical or theological subjects, in modern times the hierarchical structure of the great chain of being has been anachronistically read into the theory of evolution with reference to some medieval Muslim philosophers’ works. This approach, however, springs from the figural similarities between the great chain of being and the theory of evolution, although the contents of both theories are completely different. It would be accepted easily that similarities in figure do not necessitate similarities in content. In short, the great chain of being has been very effectively used in the history of philosophy to justify different subjects in different areas such as philosophy and theology. In this article, we address the usages of the chain in question and trace its effects specific to the Western tradition from the ancient period to modern times.

The Origin of Arthur O. Lovejoy’s “Great Chain of Being” and Its Influence on The Western Tradition

Neslihan

The science of logic seeks ways to think correctly and consistently, and essentially covers the basic rules and conditions of reasoning. Since antiquity, when the formations of this purpose were clearly seen along with its various orientations, logic has deviated into two critical paths in the narrow sense of the word. From a general framework, one of these ways was the&nbsp;traditional logic&nbsp;that developed in accordance with the logic of Aristotle while the other one was the&nbsp;new logic&nbsp;(modern, symbolic, logistics logic) that was born as a result of the development of logic based on the symbols and signs of mathematics, such as in algebra and arithmetic. New logic used a formal calculus that was created using some of the symbols and signs of mathematics as opposed to strings of words involving concepts. This symbolic language has a formal form of expression that does not include any content. However, the language of traditional logic is contextual, that is, it depends on the meanings of terms and syntactic elements of the language. Therefore, the new logic expresses its propositions and inferences through a symbolic language in a way that eliminates all these.1&nbsp;This development, indicating the change in the style of expression ranging from concepts to propositions and inferences, provides the opportunity to go beyond the relationship of traditional logic with concepts and its commitment to the grammatical fiction of language.	Logical positivist thinkers, who analyzed world, thought and language relationship in the context of a&nbsp;linguistic analysis,&nbsp;approached the issues and problems of various disciplines, especially philosophy, in different ways by taking advantage of the opportunities provided by the new logic. Although their ways of approaching the philosophical issues of the 20th&nbsp;century reached a different dimension, perhaps the common main point where they met was the effort to eliminate metaphysics from philosophy. This effort, which took form under the problem of the criterion of meaning, however, showed itself as a key issue simultaneously with the development of the new logic just before the official emergence of logical positivist thought.	In line with the information provided, this article seeks to answer the question of “how the rise of the new logic, which developed differently from traditional logic, affected the approaches of logical positivist thinkers within the framework of the subject of ‘meaning’?” The approaches of Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein who can be considered as the prominent figures of logical positivist thought have a critical place to answer this question. In this regard, Frege paid attention to the issue of meaning in the distinction between declarative sentences and nouns, and drew a fundamental line between&nbsp;Sinn&nbsp;[sense] and&nbsp;Bedeutung&nbsp;[reference]. Accordingly, a noun can be meaningful even if it does not have a reference object that it can refer to just as in the word “Odysseus” in the following example: “Odysseus was disembarked while sleeping deeply.”2&nbsp;On the other hand, attention should additionally be paid to the reference in the sentence in the case of declarative sentences since the truth value of the sentence depends on its reference.3&nbsp;Thus, in order for the statement “Odysseus was disembarked while he was in deep sleep” to receive one of the truth values, the reference of the word “Odysseus” must be taken into account. In this context Frege claimed that there may be sentences that can be assumed to be meaningful even though they lack truth values.	On the other hand, Russell made an important objection to Frege regarding this point, as Russell considered the reference to be equal to the meaning. Therefore, he emphasized that every meaningful sentence must take the value of true or false. One can see Russell’s attitude on this issue especially in his&nbsp;theory of descriptions, where he discusses the possibility of sentences that are able to take truth values without any logical contradiction while at the same time being meaningful despite having no reference. According to Russell, the gains provided by the new logic have a very important role in revealing the essential character of philosophical problems. Just as Whitehead and Russell intended to demonstrate in&nbsp;Principia Mathematica, the symbolic calculus of the new logic offered a new way of approaching the subjects and problems of philosophy.	Wittgenstein tried to establish the foundations of “meaning” within the boundaries of language by taking Russell’s approach further. On one hand, Wittgenstein addressed the issue of “meaning” within the context of his&nbsp;picture theory&nbsp;of language at first; on the other hand, he also analyzed it in the context of truth-function. Since, for him, meaning in language is the expression of a state of affairs through pictures, sentences that belong to metaphysics are meaningless/non-meaningful because these sentences are neither pictures of a state of affairs nor can they be expressed in accordance with logical syntax. The “meaning” issue, which is grounded on the principles of the new logic, has gained a new dimension and a different perspective in the approaches of these thinkers. Under this perspective, the issue of “meaning” became a basic criterion in the attempt to eliminate metaphysical sentences from philosophy, as they are considered meaningless. Therefore, one can say that the approaches of Frege, Russell, and Wittgenstein provided both an origin and a basis for these attempts of the logical positivist thinkers.	Carnap is another logical positivist thinker that will be mentioned within the scope of this study. Similar to Wittgenstein, he approached the issue of the verification of sentences within the framework of the certain verification principles based on the logical syntax of language. Accordingly, Carnap can be said to have drawn a line between meaningful philosophical problems and meaningless pseudo-philosophical problems within the framework of the parallelism between meaning and verification. To Carnap, as a result of linguistic analysis, it can be seen that the pseudo-object-propositions of metaphysics do not refer to objects, but have a structure contrary to logical syntax. However, Ayer analyzed the issue of “meaning” within the context of “verification”, and emphasized that sentences must be verified by a fact (whether an actual one or a possible one) in order for them to be meaningful.4&nbsp;As for the sentences of metaphysics, these were deemed meaningless because they could neither be verified nor had any possibility of being verified. Consequently, on the way to understanding the attempts to eliminate sentences of metaphysics from philosophy on the grounds that they are not meaningful, that is, they do not have informational value, the first point to consider is perhaps the way “criterion of meaning” is dealt in the new logic.

The Problem of Meaning in The New Logic as A Basis for Elimination Metaphysics in The Logical Positivist Understanding

Hüseyin

According to Hegel, the absolute Spirit reveals itself in three stages: art, religion, and philosophy. All of them, in their way, take the absolute as their content. For this reason, Hegel understands the Absolute and God as the same thing. In religion, the absolute Spirit manifested itself as God. However, the foundation on which religion whose main subject is God is built will be possible with the consciousness of God, because according to Hegel, it is like God to announce itself. So God is not incomprehensible, if not, it is because consciousness is not yet in the stage of mind. To the consciousness in the stage of mind, God is self-evident. For this reason, Hegel criticizes the common understandings of his time that have the opposite view. Rational theology makes possible the knowledge of the existence of God with the proof of God’s existence. To dwell on the knowledge of God’s existence, according to Hegel, is to reduce God to an empty abstraction. In this regard, rational theology provides no information about God. However, Hegel regards these proofs as valuable because they are the result of a desire to know God. Kant, on the other hand, in the context of his critical philosophy, says that the information provided by these proofs is not about God, but about the idea of God in man. Hegel also rejects his idea, which he thinks limits knowledge. Jacobi and those who emphasize immediate knowledge also strictly distinguish between mediation and immediacy. For Hegel, however, God can be known when it is understood that mediation and immediacy are one as much as they are different. These views and criticisms form the background of what Hegel wants to achieve with his approach to the knowledge of God, namely that God is not close to being known. According to Hegel, when the consciousness of God is reached, in other words, when the religious consciousness is reached, it is now possible to talk about man’s knowledge of God. In this consciousness, the knowledge of God is explained in forms of feeling, representation, and thinking. In the person who starts with direct knowledge, there is still the knowledge that God exists here, but when this is overcome, the feeling about God occurs. The first form we encounter here is feeling. At the stage of feeling, God appeared in man as feeling. The idea that religion is a matter of the heart comes from this form. Still, the stage of feeling is far from confirming its content. The content of the feeling may be something other than God, and it does not say anything about the truth of the content of the feeling. In feeling, then, everything about god has become contingent. Thereupon, Hegel switches to the form of representation, at which stage it has become possible to talk about God. Religions use various symbols and metaphors, which is possible through representation. In this respect, representation includes this unique way of expressing religion. Yet the content of religion is not here in its true form. This is possible only in the form of thinking. When it comes only to the form of thinking, the reality of its content has also become necessary. In thinking, unlike representation, a basic determination is a necessity. Thus, the existence of God and the knowledge of what God is are both necessarily so in the form of thinking. In this context, the study consists of two main parts. In the first part of the study, it is shown how the common views on the knowledge of God in Hegel’s period were understood and described by Hegel. Then, his criticisms of these views were put forward. In the other part of the study, it was tried to show what Hegel himself thought about the knowledge of God. While creating the study, I tried to be faithful to Hegel’s expressions. It was possible to see a concrete form of his philosophy of religion view through lectures on the philosophy of religion he gave in Berlin, which was published as a book after his death. Another importance of these lectures is that Hegel’s ambiguous style of expression, which is often criticized, has left its place for a clearer and more understandable expression. Apart from this, the religion part, to which he devoted a long chapter in the Phenomenology of Spirit, is also useful for learning his views on religion. In addition, in terms of explaining the relations of art, religion, and philosophy with the truth, it is possible to identify his ideas on this issue in various paragraphs in the Encyclopedia of the Philosophical Sciences and Science of Logic. The primary source for this study will be Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.

Knowledge of God in Hegel

Cengiz

CALL FOR PAPERS

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Muhsin

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.

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)

Archives of Philosophy

ISSUE 57, 2022

Loving Gaze and Accurate Knowledge

An Overview of Rousseau’s and Nietzsche’s Approaches Regarding Their Thoughts on The State of Nature and Socialization

The Origin of Arthur O. Lovejoy’s “Great Chain of Being” and Its Influence on The Western Tradition

The Problem of Meaning in The New Logic as A Basis for Elimination Metaphysics in The Logical Positivist Understanding

Knowledge of God in Hegel

INFORMATION

SHARE