Assist. Prof.

In his early works, Leibniz focused on two fundamental problems related to bodies. The first problem was in regard to how bodies change their position through motion and in this way successively occupy the space between their changed positions. The second problem involved the statement that, if bodies have extension and magnitude, they are infinitely divisible, no matter how small they are. In his works between 1668 and 1672, Leibniz argued that the infinite division of bodies means that bodies have an infinite number of parts, and these parts are composed of points that cannot be further divided. In 1671, Leibniz emphasized both that the constituent parts of bodies are in continuity and consist of infinite parts and also that these parts must have a magnitude. According to him, things without magnitude cannot have a position in space and therefore no minimum exists in relation to things that lack magnitude. Therefore, according to Leibniz, infinite division is impossible. Leibniz called these parts infinitesimals that cannot be further divided and stated them to have no parts.Leibniz believed that bodies, space, time, and motion persist. According to Leibniz, if a beginning is to be sought for persisting bodies, and likewise for space, time, and motion, then no part of them must be removed. To him, bodies and parts of space must have a position and connection with one another.For Leibniz, in order to explain the beginning and end of motion, one must assume that no extension, no part, and no division exists in space and time. When objects move, they change their position in space by moving from one position to another and change their position in time by moving from one moment to another. From Leibniz’s point of view, if one argues that the positions of space and the moments of time are at a minimum in the sense of having no magnitude, then two problems arise. Firstly, if the position of space does not have a magnitude, the paradox follows that the positions of bodies do not exist either. Secondly, even if moments of&nbsp;time have no magnitude, bodies would still be unable to change their position in space, because in such a case they would have to have only one position. The lack of a magnitude for moments of time means that objects cannot move through moments of time; as such, space would have to have only one position. However, neither case was acceptable to Leibniz, because both positions of space and moments of time must have magnitudes.Instead of arguing that space exists between bodies in places where there are no bodies and therefore where no motion or time exists, Leibniz instead argued that bodies extend toward each other. However, the metaphysics on which he relied for this view was quite different. Therefore to him, for something to be considered as having a beginning and an end, it must not spread or have any parts, but it must still possess magnitude. Yet if one assumes that the infinitesimally small parts taken as the beginning of a line are undivided in the sense that they have no magnitude, one cannot also take such points as the end points of other lines, and this leads to the disappearance of the distinction between any two bodies.For Leibniz, no situation exists in which bodies are completely at rest. According to him, bodies always desire to move forward in accordance with their conatus; even if their movement is stopped by other bodies, the conatus’ desire to move forward does not cease. Therefore to Leibniz, the conatus of any single body at any given time continues to persist as long as nothing else is found to be obstructing it at that given time. However, as the conatus moves forward and one body pushes or reacts to an impact from another body, the conatus of the body is transferred to the conatus of the opposite body. Still, bodies or objects are not permanent and lack recollection. for Leibniz, the fact that bodies lack the power to recollect of their own means accordingly means that they also lack actions, passions, and thoughts. For Leibniz, only the mind can recollect opposing conatuses at more than one moment of time. Therefore, Leibniz can be said to consider the mind to be a priori because of these functions of the mind. For, without the mind’s power of recollection, it cannot explain motion merely through the conatus of things.&nbsp;

Motion and Continuity in Leibniz’s Early Works

Eyüp

Every study that deals with Plato’s view of the soul must first examine the Platonic Corpus as a whole and find their own way in it. However, the following question is encountered: Can the nature of the soul fully be comprehended without comprehending the nature of the universe? Then one will realize that this Socratic question must inevitably be counted as the starting point of this research. When reexamining the Platonic Corpus with this question in mind, the study will this time place itself directly between the lines of Timaeus and try to proceed into the myths narrated in these lines. Then the study will turn to Phaedrus and see that the narratives in this work form a unity with those in Timaeus. In addition, the study will help one understand that these dialogues are among the primary sources from which one can obtain Plato’s view of the creation, origin, and embodiment of the soul, thus it will determine the vital points of the route that leads to Plato’s view of soul. However, the study will discerned that the expressions in these dialogues contain no clear explanation but are laced with metaphors that need to be transcended. At this point, one can hear the words of Socrates in Phaedrus: “We can’t explain exactly what the soul is, but we can explain what it looks like.” These words will illuminate the way like a flare. In this case, Plato’s view of soul can be revealed by opening the curtain behind these metaphorical expressions. For this reason, the first thing the study will do is present an analysis within the framework of the dialogues in Timaeus and Phaedrus and discuss firstly the creation, origin, and then embodiment of the soul in this context.In this way, the study will show in light of the analyses based on the narratives in the Timaeus and Phaedrus that the soul in Plato’s eyes is an issue that needs to be dealt with and examined under two separate contexts. The first of these is the original soul, which means the essence of the universe (i.e., the World-soul); the second is the soul that is formed by God as a craftsman using the leaven of the World-soul and bestowing it upon creatures. Therefore, while investigating the origin, nature, and function of the soul, one must start with the original soul as a method. In this&nbsp;respect, because the original and universal soul contains a reason and was formed as an immortal principle, the created souls from it inevitably must have reason and immortality, even if lacks the same value and competence. In this way, by originating from such a source, the soul has an independent and individual nature.This immortal and individual nature of the soul is the main issue upon which Plato built his view of the soul. For Plato, the soul is essentially one, whole, and monolithic with no separate or independent parts. This is why the soul has such a unique and lofty position when considered on its own, freed from the bonds of the body, rather than in its already incarnated state. However, when taken in its embodied form, the soul constitutes a perfect unity in all its aspects, similar to how the organs of the body have no value on their own. In this sense, the partition of the soul is a hypothetical approach. It is a figurative expression that serves to articulate an incomprehensible issue. When one delves deeper into this metaphor, describing the mortal soul as “spirit” and “appetite” expresses the dispositions that enable the immortal soul that contains reason to hold on to earthly and bodily life. Thus, the fact that the soul is considered as both a mortal and immortal being finds meaning at this point, because the soul is able to live in this world and to establish a relationship with the real world (i.e., the realm of Ideas) during this worldly life. As a result, the soul according to Plato forms the vital point of his ontological and epistemological theory in terms of the possibility of establishing connections between the realm of Ideas and this world.&nbsp;

Plato’s Concept of Soul (Psykhē)

Bahadır

Res. Assist.

Socrates’ philosophy as expressed in its most general form manifests itself in the framework of questions of the type “What is F-ness?” The method is determinant in how an asked question is handled and the character of the philosophy that is identified with it. This method is elenchus, or the Socratic method. This study aims to generally explain what elenchus is and how it can be used. While explaining this, the study benefits from the relationship between eristic and elenchus. In this way, the study will first discuss the sophists. The sophists were the first teachers of Ancient Greece, although they are often mentioned negatively. In general terms, the sophists’ education was based on teaching the intricacies of being right in a discussion. Within this approach, the discussion is built on being right or wrong, with people being positioned as winners or losers. The sophists’ art of persuasion purports to teach the defense of any argument on any subject with as much success as its counter-argument. A question is exhibited in front of a large group of participants through a discourse or a speech that has been previously wellprepared on a subject. What shapes sophists’ discourse practices is their unifying philosophical position of skepticism. The important thing is to be right and to be the winner of the discussion. The method should also serve this purpose. Therefore, the sophists’ practice is results-oriented rather than an investigation into what the subject really means. What is attractive for those who demand a sophist education is the result, and eristic is the method that is seen to be useful for achieving this result. In eristic, the main aim during the discussion is to refute, no matter what happens. Therefore, the method is based on refutation.As for Socrates, he was firstly a philosopher of life and morality, and his pursuit of truth shaped his philosophy. What had shaped his pursuit was elenchus. Although Socrates was able to share some common points with the sophists, the main point that distinguished him from the sophists was his pursuit of truth and the method that shaped this pursuit. Socrates’ elenchus was also refutation, just like eristic. However, refutation in elenchus is different from refutation in eristic. First, the winner-loser opposition of eristic should be noted to not be present in elenchus. Elenchus is based on co-investigation. The main features of elenchus as developed on the basis of co-investigation are listed as follows:1. The topic being covered in the dialogue: “What is F-ness?” (Socrates’ interlocutor makes the claim of “I know”.)2. The response from Socrates’ interlocutor to the question “What is F-ness?” F-ness is “p.” (“Saying what he believes”)&nbsp;3. “p” is investigated4. New claims (e.g., “q,” “r,” “s,” …) emerge during the investigation and are accepted by the interlocutor.5. Discover what inconsistencies exist for “p” with “q,” “r,” “s,” and so on.6. Have the interlocutor who approved “q,” “r,” “s,” and so on during the investigation fail to return to “p”, the first claim.7. As a result, the interlocutor who claims that “p” is the answer for “What is F-ness?” gives up his claim, and the claim of “p is F-ness” is eliminated.In elenchus, that Socrates not give a satisfactory answer to a question posed such as “What is F-ness?” is determinative. Eristic also does not provide a satisfactory answer to a question. However, both of them have different ways of giving an unsatisfactory answer. While rivalry is present in eristic, elenchus has partnership. Although the aim of the person using eristic to win the discussion may justify the inclusion of non-discussion elements in the discussion, such an attitude is not the case in elenchus. Eristic only aims at doxastic inconsistency, it does not aim to find consistency or inconsistency in the beliefs of the interlocutor; the area of interest is verbal consistency/inconsistency. Here, the importance of the motto “Say what you believe” becomes clear for elenchus, as well as its distinction from eristic. Although both methods create confusion for the interlocutor, the confusion that Socrates wanted to create in the interlocutor can be seen not just as confusion but also as a real surprise due to the distinct structure elenchus has from eristic and aimed at eliminating the conceit the interlocutor displayed at the beginning of the discussion. For this reason, while the defeat of the interlocutor is a negative thing for the interlocutor in eristic discussion, the defeat of the interlocutor is a positive thing for the interlocutor in elenchus. In this respect, elenchus can be seen as the first step in the pursuit of truth.&nbsp;

In the Shadow of “Yes, Socrates!”: An Inquiry into Elenchus

Tuncay

Davidson offers an unfamiliar negative definition of metaphor, especially across from the semantic theories of metaphor in his article ‘What Metaphors Mean’ (WMM: 1978). What Davidson denies is assumption that metaphors have cognitive content and secondary metaphorical meanings. This way of explaining metaphors is a central mistake that has occured since Aristotle to contemporary theorists such as Richards, Black, Goodman and Henle. He placed a distinction between what metaphors mean and what they do. In this sense, metaphors are not a domain of meaning but of use. As such Davidson viewed metaphors to not be a semantic phenomenon. But more akin to nudging the listener or bumping them on the head. This is not a semantic effect but does cause one to think about similarities or make comparisons. However, this effect causes all these things, once the listener grasps that initial meaning is clearly wrong. The conclusion is that metaphors are neither semantic, cognitive, nor propositional. Therefore, one cannot talk about a metaphorical meaning or a metaphorical proposition, and therefore, neither can one talk about a metaphorical truth. I shall take this part as one feature of Davidson’s theory and try to examine it by showing how it works in some aspects as well as the semantic or pragmatic theories of metaphor.&nbsp;Furthermore, Davidson denied theories that account for metaphors as elliptical similes where the metaphorical meaning is attempted to be found by checking for similarities. Metaphors and similes are the same with regard to causing one to search for similarities, but they differ in terms of being mostly true or mostly false. Davidson argued that metaphors are mostly false, whereas similes are mostly true. However, he appears to have missed some points related to similes also being able to be metaphorical. Meanwhile, Davidson also put forth that elliptical simile theories of metaphor are mostly useless. Moreover, Davidson appealed to object classes in order to talk about similarities. Accordingly, to be similar means to share the property of the class. Two roses are similar by virtue of their being roses. But no metaphor shows such class-depended and therefore finding similarities can be said to provide the meaning of a metaphor. Yet Davidson accepted that metaphors cause ones to make comparisons or find similarities between two things. Metaphors do these kinds of things not semantically but by causing an effect. I shall take his claims about similes and similarity as a second feature of his theory and will examine it by showing its problematic bases.The last feature I shall try to show and examine in this study is the explanations of metaphor using visuals and “seeing-as” with reference to Wittgenstein. Davidson likened metaphors to pictures and dreams with the claim that pictures and dreams cannot be explained in terms what they exactly are. On the other hand, Davidson likened metaphors to Wittgenstein’s rabbit-duck visual. He also used the Wittgensteinian term of seeing-as to explain metaphor. Accordingly, a difference exists between see a thing and see a thing as somethşng else. Metaphors involve seeing one thing as another. Daivdson’s claims regarding visualization and seeing-as are supported by such writers as Camp and Reimer. I shall try to show the problems with these claims by also mentioning how Wittgenstein’s seeing-as and rabbit-duck visual are not suitable for Davidson’s metaphor theory.I shall attempt to show the relationship between Davidson’s metaphor theory and his own theory of meaning, as well as the relationships with the other metaphor theories that appeared at the time of WMM. One extra thing that I present for examination is a distinction between literary and other metaphors. Literary works aim to both mean something in the best way and to use figures simply as ornaments. Based on this claim, I accept that literary metaphors can appear as a result of instrumental and purposeful causes while the other metaphors, such as metaphors of ordinary language mostly have instrumental causes. I believe that making this distinction can help eliminate some types of problems. I also consider the second type of metaphors in this study.

On Davidson’s Metaphor Theory

Turan

The purpose of this article is to provide a solution to the paradox of teletransportation in terms of the philosophy of time, which leads to problems related to the philosophy of mind and consciousness. In the first chapter, I present a description and analysis of the problems. Teletransportation paradox, as a hypothetical assumption, simply asks whether or not consciousness survives the teletransportation operation. If consciousness as reality is “beamed up” to another location in the spacetime continuum, would it survive? For the same purpose, I cite an example from a work of fiction, an episode from Star Trek: The Next Generation, which is famous for the “teletransportation by energizing” concept. Some philosophers like Parfit and Chisholm have provided answers to this problem, but of course, the answers are not limited to them. In this article, I employ a different solution by adapting the puzzle of the philosophy of time known as the Ship of Theseus. I think that it is viable to apply Sider’s possible solution for the Ship of Theseus to the stream of consciousness. In the second chapter, I briefly discuss the main problems of the philosophy of time and their connections concerning the mind and consciousness, which I consider crucial for my purpose since there may be powerful objections against the ontological status of the mind in comparison to the other objects. To overcome these objections, I apply the tensed and detensed language operators and their ontological specifications. I hold the view that these tense operators—and the lack of their being—provide a truth value when it comes to the problem of identity. Why should one not apply the reducible detensed operators to consciousness when we can do the same thing to ordinary physical objects? This chapter, especially, addresses this question and tries to give a positive answer to it. In doing so, I show that the four-dimensionalist approach may be favored against the Bundle Theory. Therefore, my position is that of a Platonic essentialist, while arguing the position of the mind itself as a transition. In case there are other objections to my point of view, I defend the mind and its existence as being indispensable to the spacetime continuum , thereby revealing the fact that consciousness cannot be completely separated from spacetime. On the contrary, it depends on the so-called “transitions.” In this way, I believe I will be able to prove my thesis that the consciousness in time is inseparable from the identity of other objects over time that are real in terms of the flow of time. When time passes from the now to the past and finally to the future, it is merely a problem of alignment concerning the positions of objects in the spacetime continuum. Therefore, in the third and last chapter, I apply the four-dimensionalist approach by analogy to mind and consciousness. Everything that is created over time is not beyond time itself; therefore, I maintain my position as an eternalist, which states that there are no temporal locations but temporal realities in which the objects “perdure” their identities, consciousness being no exception. Since consciousness cannot be an exception to the spatiotemporal relations of objects in time, the nature of consciousness depends on the changes, or the lack thereof, in time.&nbsp;

Bundle Theory, Teletransportation Paradox, and FourDimensionalist Approach

Merve

Erman

Bending the Structure: Jacques Lacan Along the Axis of Structuralism and Poststructuralism

Nusret

Peer disagreement involves a situation of conflict between subjects who are epistemically indistinguishable or who consider each other to be equals and have no reason to consider each other to be flawed. Controversy arises over what kind of attitude epistemic peers who have different beliefs should display despite starting from the same evidence. In the face of this problem about what is rational, two basic solutions are encountered. According to the conciliatory approach, the rational attitude in the case of a peer disagreement is that the subjects suspend their disagreement of beliefs or lower the level of confidence in these beliefs. The view that opposes this and is expressed as steadfast argues that the subjects can maintain their beliefs rationally despite the disagreement.This idea of the conciliatory view, which argues as a general thesis that maintaining a belief that is the subject of debate in peer conflict is unreasonable has two basic grounds: (i) Conflict itself is an epistemic defeater and undermines the epistemic status of the subjects’ initial beliefs, and (ii) After conflict has arisen, subjects are unable to refer to the evidence of their first-order beliefs in determining their epistemic attitudes.Lackey (2010) argued the general thesis of the conciliatory view to be flawed in some cases. People have beliefs that are highly justified and that cannot be reasonably explained as disagreement. A state of disagreement in the face of such beliefs indicates that one of the subjects has a rather peculiar mental disorder. If the subject is able to believe that they do not have a mental disorder because of their own personal information, they can reasonably believe that the other person has the problem. According to Lackey, the subject may therefore believe that the other person is no longer their epistemic peer in the face of highly justified beliefs and can rationally continue to maintain the belief in question.Lackey argues that even if (i) is true, some beliefs’ level of justification can defeat the higher order (second-order) defeater, which is the disagreement itself. Although Christensen (2011) found this idea to be correct, he argued that this does not pose a problem for the conciliatory approach. According to Christensen, highly justified beliefs also possess some good reason to consider these beliefs to be rational. In other words, these beliefs have positive character higher-order evidence (+HOE) and can neutralize the confounding role of negative character higher-order defeaters (-HOE), which is the conflict itself. In such cases, the subject can maintain their original belief, and the conciliatory view does not take a position against it.Although Christensen seems correct in this regard, higher-order evidence of positive character poses a problem in some cases for the conciliatory thesis, because +HOE is a reason why subjects consider each other as peers in some cases. For example, people who are experts in a subject or in a position to seek expert opinion may not only have some evidence for their first-order beliefs but also some reason to believe their beliefs to be rational. Moreover, two subjects who believe each other to be experts should share these reasons (i.e., +HOE) with each other or be aware that they may have such reasons. Otherwise, they are not able to be in an epistemic position where they can accept each other as peers.The problem is that, if +HOE can eliminate the higher-order defeater in the case of highly justified beliefs, this should also be true in expert disputes as well, because experts may also have highly justified beliefs or believe they are highly justified. However, +HOE is one of the reasons they consider each other as peers and thus cannot be a reason for not accepting each other as peers upon a disagreement. This is a clear circularity error and thus (ii) is violated. Moreover, if both subjects can reasonably maintain their beliefs because of the +HOE, the conflict situation would not disappear, and this means an understanding that is contrary to the conciliatory approach. Still, the conciliatory view can solve this problem by arguing that positive higher order evidence can be a defeater over negative higher evidence as long as they are not the reasons why the subjects consider each other as peers.&nbsp;

The Conciliatory View in Peer Disagreement and the Problem of Highly  Justified Beliefs

Oğuzcan

Bibliographies on Schmitt in the Turkish Literature

Cengiz

Prof.

CALL FOR PAPERS

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Muhsin

Art as a Procedure of Signification

Zeynep

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 Sosyal Bilimler Atıf Dizini

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 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) 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 COPE and ICJME 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 Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), the Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), the Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA), and the World Association of Medical Editors (WAME) 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
Issue Date	04.07.2022
Editor(s)	Cengiz Çakmak
Cover (PDF)
Front Pages (PDF)

Archives of Philosophy

ISSUE 56, 2022

Motion and Continuity in Leibniz’s Early Works

Plato’s Concept of Soul (Psykhē)

In the Shadow of “Yes, Socrates!”: An Inquiry into Elenchus

On Davidson’s Metaphor Theory

Bundle Theory, Teletransportation Paradox, and FourDimensionalist Approach

Bending the Structure: Jacques Lacan Along the Axis of Structuralism and Poststructuralism

The Conciliatory View in Peer Disagreement and the Problem of Highly Justified Beliefs

Bibliographies on Schmitt in the Turkish Literature

INFORMATION

SHARE