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;

Leibniz’in Erken Dönem Çalışmalarında Hareket ve Süreklilik

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;

Platon’un Ruh (Psykhē) Anlayışı

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;

“Evet, Sokrates!”in Gölgesinde: Elenkhos Üzerine Bir Soruşturma

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.

Davidson’ın Metafor Kuramı Üzerine

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;

Demet Teorisi, Işınlanma Paradoksu ve Zaman Felsefesinde  Dört-Boyutçuluk Açısından Bir Yaklaşım

Merve

Erman

Yapıyı Bükmek: Yapısalcılık ve Postyapısalcılık Ekseninde Jacques  Lacan

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;

Akran Anlaşmazlığında Uzlaşımcılık ve Yüksek Düzeyde  Gerekçeli İnançlar Problemi

Oğuzcan

Türkçe Literatürde Carl Schmitt Bibliyografyası

Cengiz

Prof.

MAKALE ÇAĞRISI

Faik

Lecturer

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

Bilimde Değerlerin Rolü Işığında Bilime Güven

Tolgahan

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

Bileşimsellik İlkesinin Önemsizliği Üzerine

Hediye

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

Kamusal Alana Eşit Katılımın Toplumsal Cinsiyet Eşitliği Özelinde Tartışılması

Şilan

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

Antik Yunan Tarihinin “Sınırlarında”: Karatani ve İzonomi

Tonguç

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

Yalanlar, Hikayeler ve Argümanlar: Asil Yalansız Bir Kallipolis Mümkün Mü?

Zeynep

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

Aristoteles’in Kategoriler’i Formlar Teorisini Nasıl Eleştirir?

Ahmet

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

İbn Sînâ’nın Aristotelesçi Zaman Kavramını Yorumlaması

Baran

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

Yalçın Koç’un Aşkınlık Anlayışı Çerçevesinde Yenidoğanlara ve Hayvanlara Dair Bilinç Çalışmalarındaki Eksiklikler: Aşkınlık, Dil ve Tecrübenin Biricikliği

Ekin

Elif

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

Kum Tanelerini Saymak: Latin Şiirinde Öznel Zaman Algısına Kavramsal Metafor Açısından Bakış

@JOURNAL_BOX_CURRENT

@JOURNAL_BOX_EARLYVIEW

Muhsin

Bir Anlamlandırma Yordamı Olarak Sanat

Doğal Dünyanın Logos’undan Estetik Dünyanın Logos’una: Cézanne’nın Dinleyen Gözleri

@JOURNAL_BOX_FEATURED

Güncel

İlişkisel Bir “Dünya” Olarak Sanat ve Nesnenin Yeni Estetik Deneyimde Bozulumu

Adnan

Bir Sanat Eseri Olarak Yaşamın Anlamı

@JOURNAL_BOX_MOSTREAD

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy, İstanbul Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Felsefe Bölümü’nün 1945 yılından beri yayınladığı akademik dergisidir. Açık-erişimli, bilimsel ve hakemli bir dergi olarak yılda iki defa Haziran ve Aralık aylarında yayınlanır.

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy dergisinin amacı Türkçe, İngilizce, Almanca ve Fransızca özgün araştırma makalesi, çeviri metin ve kitap incelemesi yazıları yayınlayarak ve ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde alanla ilgili bilginin paylaşımına katkıda bulunmaktır. 

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy felsefenin tüm alanlarına ilişkin konuları kapsar. Derginin hedef kitlesini akademisyenler, araştırmacılar, profesyoneller, öğrenciler ve ilgili mesleki, akademik kurum ve kuruluşlar oluşturur.

Derginin tüm giderleri İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Dergide makale yayını ve makale süreçlerinin yürütülmesi ücrete tabi değildir. Dergiye gönderilen ya da yayın için kabul edilen makaleler için işlemleme ücreti ya da gönderim ücreti alınmaz.

DOAJ

SOBIAD

The Philosopher’s Index

@METRIC_VOLUMES

@METRIC_ISSUES

@METRIC_ARTICLES

@METRIC_OPENACCESS

Felsefe Arkivi

@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

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy dergisinin amacı Türkçe, İngilizce, Almanca ve Fransızca özgün araştırma makalesi, çeviri metin ve kitap incelemesi yazıları yayınlayarak ve ulusal ve uluslararası düzeyde alanla ilgili bilginin paylaşımına katkıda bulunmaktır.  Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy felsefenin tüm alanlarına ilişkin konuları kapsar. Derginin hedef kitlesini akademisyenler, araştırmacılar, profesyoneller, öğrenciler ve ilgili mesleki, akademik kurum ve kuruluşlar oluşturur.

Amaç ve Kapsam

DOAJSOBİADThe Philosopher’s Index

Dizinler

Dergi yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <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>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için: <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> Gönderilen makaleler derginin amaç ve kapsamına uygun olmalıdır. Orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmayan, her bir yazar tarafından içeriği ve gönderimi onaylanmış yazılar değerlendirmeye kabul edilir. Makale yayınlanmak üzere Dergiye gönderildikten sonra yazarlardan hiçbirinin ismi, tüm yazarların yazılı izni olmadan yazar listesinden silinemez ve yeni bir isim yazar olarak eklenemez ve yazar sırası değiştirilemez.İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştrma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir. Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.İntihal Ön kontrolden geçirilen makaleler, iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal/kendi kendine intihal tespit edilirse yazarlar bilgilendirilir. Editörler, gerekli olması halinde makaleyi değerlendirme ya da üretim sürecinin çeşitli aşamalarında intihal kontrolüne tabi tutabilirler. Yüksek benzerlik oranları, bir makalenin kabul edilmeden önce ve hatta kabul edildikten sonra reddedilmesine neden olabilir. Makalenin türüne bağlı olarak, bunun oranın %15 veya %20'den az olması beklenir.Çift Kör Hakemlikİntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir. Editör, makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakemlikten geçmesini sağlar ve makale biçimsel esaslara uygun ise, gelen yazıyı yurtiçinden ve /veya yurtdışından en az iki hakemin değerlendirmesine sunar, hakemler gerek gördüğü takdirde yazıda istenen değişiklikler yazarlar tarafından yapıldıktan sonra yayınlanmasına onay verir.

Politikalar

Dergi açık erişimlidir ve derginin tüm içeriği okura ya da okurun dahil olduğu kuruma ücretsiz olarak sunulur. Okurlar, ticari amaç haricinde, yayıncı ya da yazardan izin almadan dergi makalelerinin tam metnini okuyabilir, indirebilir, kopyalayabilir, arayabilir ve link sağlayabilir. Bu <a href="https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/translations/turkish-translation" target="_blank">BOAI</a> açık erişim tanımıyla uyumludur. Derginin açık erişimli makaleleri Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır.

Derginin tüm giderleri İstanbul Üniversitesi tarafından karşılanmaktadır. Dergide makale yayını ve makale süreçlerinin yürütülmesi ücrete tabi değildir. Dergiye gönderilen ya da yayın için kabul edilen makaleler için işlemleme ücreti ya da gönderim ücreti alınmaz.

Yazarlar dergide yayınlanan çalışmalarının telif hakkına sahiptirler ve çalışmaları  Creative Commons Atıf-GayrıTicari 4.0 Uluslararası (<a href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/deed.tr" target="_blank">CC BY-NC 4.0</a>) olarak lisanslıdır. CC BY-NC 4.0 lisansı, eserin ticari kullanım dışında her boyut ve formatta paylaşılmasına, kopyalanmasına, çoğaltılmasına ve orijinal esere uygun şekilde atıfta bulunmak kaydıyla yeniden düzenleme, dönüştürme ve eserin üzerine inşa etme dâhil adapte edilmesine izin verir.

Editörler, yayınlanan makalede, bulguları, yorumları ve sonuçları etkilemeyen küçük hatalar tespit edilirse düzeltme yayınlamayı düşünebilirler. Editörler, bulguları ve sonuçları geçersiz kılan büyük hatalar / ihlaller söz konusu olduğunda, makaleyi geri çekmeyi düşünmelidir. Yazarlar tarafından araştırma veya yayını kötüye kullanmaya yönelik olasılık söz konusu ise; bulguların güvenilir olmadığına ve yazarların kurumlarının olayı soruşturmadığına dair kanıtlar var veya olası soruşturma haksız veya sonuçsuz görünüyor ise, editörler endişe ifadesi yayınlamayı düşünmelidir. Düzeltme, geri çekme veya endişe ifadesi ile ilgili olarak <a href="https://publicationethics.org/resources/flowcharts/complete-set-english" target="_blank">COPE</a> ve <a href="https://www.icmje.org/recommendations/" target="_blank">ICJME</a> yönergeleri dikkate alınır.

Dergide yayınlanan tüm yazıların korunmasını ve kalıcı olarak erişilebilir olmasını sağlamak için makaleler, ulusal bir arşiv sitesi olarak hizmet veren ve aynı zamanda LOCKSS'in içeriği toplamasına, korumasına ve sunmasına izin veren Dergipark'ta saklanmaktadır.Ek olarak, yazarların kendilerinin makalelerinin son PDF sürümünü Open Archives Initiative (<a href="https://www.openarchives.org/" target="_blank">https://www.openarchives.org/</a>) standartlarına uygun açık elektronik arşivlerde arşivlemeleri önerilir. Yazarlar, yayınladıkları arşiv versiyonundan, İ.Ü. Yayınevinin dergi web sitesinin URL'sine bağlantı sağlamalıdır.

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy, yayın etiğinde en yüksek standartlara bağlıdır ve <a href="https://publicationethics.org/" target="_blank">Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)</a>, <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>, <a href="https://oaspa.org/" target="_blank">Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)</a> ve <a href="https://www.wame.org/" target="_blank">World Association of Medical Editors (WAME)</a> tarafından yayınlanan etik yayıncılık ilkelerini benimser; Principles of Transparency and Best Practice in Scholarly Publishing başlığı altında ifade edilen ilkeler için adres: <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>Gönderilen tüm makaleler orijinal, yayınlanmamış ve başka bir dergide değerlendirme sürecinde olmamalıdır. Yazar makalenin orijinal olduğu, daha önce başka bir yerde yayınlanmadığı ve başka bir yerde, başka bir dilde yayınlanmak üzere değerlendirmede olmadığını beyan etmelidir. Uygulamadaki telif kanunları ve anlaşmaları gözetilmelidir. Telife bağlı materyaller (örneğin tablolar, şekiller veya büyük alıntılar) gerekli izin ve teşekkürle kullanılmalıdır. Başka yazarların, katkıda bulunanların çalışmaları ya da yararlanılan kaynaklar uygun biçimde kullanılmalı ve referanslarda belirtilmelidir.Her bir makale en az iki hakem tarafından çift kör değerlendirmeden geçirilir. İntihal, duplikasyon, sahte yazarlık/inkar edilen yazarlık, araştırma/veri fabrikasyonu, makale dilimleme, dilimleyerek yayın, telif hakları ihlali ve çıkar çatışmasının gizlenmesi, etik dışı davranışlar olarak kabul edilir.Kabul edilen etik standartlara uygun olmayan tüm makaleler yayından çıkarılır. Buna yayından sonra tespit edilen olası kuraldışı, uygunsuzluklar içeren makaleler de dahildir.

Etik

Felsefe Arkivi – Archives of Philosophy araştırma etiğinde en yüksek standartları gözetir ve aşağıda tanımlanan uluslararası araştırma etiği ilkelerini benimser. Makalelerin etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır.- Araştırmanın tasarlanması, tasarımın gözden geçirilmesi ve araştırmanın yürütülmesinde, bütünlük, kalite ve şeffaflık ilkeleri sağlanmalıdır.- Araştırma ekibi ve katılımcılar, araştırmanın amacı, yöntemleri ve öngörülen olası kullanımları; araştırmaya katılımın gerektirdikleri ve varsa riskleri hakkında tam olarak bilgilendirilmelidir.- Araştırma katılımcılarının sağladığı bilgilerin gizliliği ve yanıt verenlerin gizliliği sağlanmalıdır. Araştırma katılımcıların özerkliğini ve saygınlığını koruyacak şekilde tasarlanmalıdır.- Araştırma katılımcıları gönüllü olarak araştırmada yer almalı, herhangi bir zorlama altında olmamalıdırlar.- Katılımcıların zarar görmesinden kaçınılmalıdır. Araştırma, katılımcıları riske sokmayacak şekilde planlanmalıdır.- Araştırma bağımsızlığıyla ilgili açık ve net olunmalı; çıkar çatışması varsa belirtilmelidir.- İnsan denekler ile yapılan deneysel çalışmalarda, araştırmaya katılmaya karar veren katılımcıların yazılı bilgilendirilmiş onayı alınmalıdır. Çocukların ve vesayet altındakilerin veya tasdiklenmiş akıl hastalığı bulunanların yasal vasisinin onayı alınmalıdır.- Çalışma herhangi bir kurum ya da kuruluşta gerçekleştirilecekse bu kurum ya da kuruluştan çalışma yapılacağına dair onay alınmalıdır.- İnsan öğesi bulunan çalışmalarda, “yöntem” bölümünde katılımcılardan “bilgilendirilmiş onam” alındığının ve çalışmanın yapıldığı kurumdan etik kurul onayı alındığı belirtilmesi gerekir.

Makalelerin bilimsel ve etik kurallara uygunluğu yazarların sorumluluğundadır. Yazar makalenin orijinal olduğu, daha önce başka bir yerde yayınlanmadığı ve başka bir yerde, başka bir dilde yayınlanmak üzere değerlendirmede olmadığı konusunda teminat sağlamalıdır. Uygulamadaki telif kanunları ve anlaşmaları gözetilmelidir. Telife bağlı materyaller (örneğin tablolar, şekiller veya büyük alıntılar) gerekli izin ve teşekkürle kullanılmalıdır. Başka yazarların, katkıda bulunanların çalışmaları ya da yararlanılan kaynaklar uygun biçimde kullanılmalı ve referanslarda belirtilmelidir.Gönderilen makalede tüm yazarların akademik ve bilimsel olarak doğrudan katkısı olmalıdır, bu bağlamda “yazar” yayınlanan bir araştırmanın kavramsallaştırılmasına ve dizaynına, verilerin elde edilmesine, analizine ya da yorumlanmasına belirgin katkı yapan, yazının yazılması ya da bunun içerik açısından eleştirel biçimde gözden geçirilmesinde görev yapan birisi olarak görülür. Yazar olabilmenin diğer koşulları ise, makaledeki çalışmayı planlamak veya icra etmek ve / veya revize etmektir. Fon sağlanması, veri toplanması ya da araştırma grubunun genel süpervizyonu tek başına yazarlık hakkı kazandırmaz. Yazar olarak gösterilen tüm bireyler sayılan tüm ölçütleri karşılamalıdır ve yukarıdaki ölçütleri karşılayan her birey yazar olarak gösterilebilir. Yazarların isim sıralaması ortak verilen bir karar olmalıdır. Tüm yazarlar yazar sıralamasını <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/E44D323506324194A71D75C397A5352A" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formunda</a> imzalı olarak belirtmek zorundadırlar.Yazarlık için yeterli ölçütleri karşılamayan ancak çalışmaya katkısı olan tüm bireyler “teşekkür / bilgiler” kısmında sıralanmalıdır. Bunlara örnek olarak ise sadece teknik destek sağlayan, yazıma yardımcı olan ya da sadece genel bir destek sağlayan, finansal ve materyal desteği sunan kişiler verilebilir.Bütün yazarlar, araştırmanın sonuçlarını ya da bilimsel değerlendirmeyi etkileyebilme potansiyeli olan finansal ilişkiler, çıkar çatışması ve çıkar rekabetini beyan etmelidirler. Bir yazar kendi yayınlanmış yazısında belirgin bir hata ya da yanlışlık tespit ederse, bu yanlışlıklara ilişkin düzeltme ya da geri çekme için editör ile hemen temasa geçme ve işbirliği yapma sorumluluğunu taşır.

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirirler. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır. Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemler, araştırma, yazarlar ve/veya araştırmaya fon sağlayanlarla çıkar çatışması içinde olmamalıdır. Hakemler değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme çift taraflı kör hakemlik ile değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.

Hakemlik Hakkında

Baş editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirirler. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar. Gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalacağını garanti eder. Baş editör içerik ve yayının toplam kalitesinden sorumludur. Gereğinde hata sayfası yayınlamalı ya da düzeltme yapmalıdır. Baş editör; yazarlar, editörler ve hakemler arasında çıkar çatışmasına izin vermez. Hakem atama konusunda tam yetkiye sahiptir ve dergide yayınlanacak makalelerle ilgili nihai kararı vermekle yükümlüdür.Hakemler, araştırma, yazarlar ve/veya araştırmaya fon sağlayanlarla çıkar çatışması içinde olmamalıdır. Hakemler değerlendirmelerinin sonucunda tarafsız bir yargıya varmalıdırlar. Gönderilmiş yazılara ilişkin tüm bilginin gizli tutulmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir. Bazı durumlarda editörün kararıyla, ilgili hakemlerin makaleye ait yorumları aynı makaleyi yorumlayan diğer hakemlere gönderilerek hakemlerin bu süreçte aydınlatılması sağlanabilir.

Daha önce yayınlanmamış ya da yayınlanmak üzere başka bir dergide halen değerlendirmede olmayan ve her bir yazar tarafından onaylanan makaleler değerlendirilmek üzere kabul edilir. Gönderilen ve ön kontrolü geçen makaleler iThenticate yazılımı kullanılarak intihal için taranır. İntihal kontrolünden sonra, uygun olan makaleler baş editör tarafından orijinallik, metodoloji, işlenen konunun önemi ve dergi kapsamı ile uyumluluğu açısından değerlendirilir. Editör, makaleleri, yazarların etnik kökeninden, cinsiyetinden, cinsel yöneliminden, uyruğundan, dini inancından ve siyasi felsefesinden bağımsız olarak değerlendirir. Yayına gönderilen makalelerin adil bir şekilde çift taraflı kör hakem değerlendirmesinden geçmelerini sağlar.Seçilen makaleler en az iki ulusal/uluslararası hakeme değerlendirmeye gönderilir; yayın kararı, hakemlerin talepleri doğrultusunda yazarların gerçekleştirdiği düzenlemelerin ve hakem sürecinin sonrasında baş editör tarafından verilir.Hakemlerin değerlendirmeleri objektif olmalıdır. Hakem süreci sırasında hakemlerin aşağıdaki hususları dikkate alarak değerlendirmelerini yapmaları beklenir.-Makale yeni ve önemli bir bilgi içeriyor mu?-Öz, makalenin içeriğini net ve düzgün bir şekilde tanımlıyor mu?-Yöntem bütünlüklü ve anlaşılır şekilde tanımlanmış mı?-Yapılan yorum ve varılan sonuçlar bulgularla kanıtlanıyor mu?-Alandaki diğer çalışmalara yeterli referans verilmiş mi?-Dil kalitesi yeterli mi?Hakemler, gönderilen makalelere ilişkin tüm bilginin, makale yayınlanana kadar gizli kalmasını sağlamalı ve yazar tarafında herhangi bir telif hakkı ihlali ve intihal fark ederlerse editöre raporlamalıdırlar. Hakem, makale konusu hakkında kendini vasıflı hissetmiyor ya da zamanında geri dönüş sağlaması mümkün görünmüyorsa, editöre bu durumu bildirmeli ve hakem sürecine kendisini dahil etmemesini istemelidir.Değerlendirme sürecinde editör hakemlere gözden geçirme için gönderilen makalelerin, yazarların özel mülkü olduğunu ve bunun imtiyazlı bir iletişim olduğunu açıkça belirtir. Hakemler ve yayın kurulu üyeleri başka kişilerle makaleleri tartışamazlar. Hakemlerin kimliğinin gizli kalmasına özen gösterilmelidir.

Dil Dergi Türkçe, İngilizce, Almanca ve Fransızca makale kabul eder.Yazıların Hazırlanması ve Yazım KurallarıAksi belirtilmedikçe gönderilen yazılarla ilgili tüm yazışmalar ilk yazarla yapılacaktır. Makale gönderimi online olarak erişilen <a href="https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/login" target="_blank">http://dergipark.gov.tr/login</a> üzerinden yapılmalıdır. Gönderilen yazılar, makale türünü belirten ve makaleyle ilgili detayları içeren (bkz: Son Kontrol Listesi) <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/326C5617571F4DC5AD714B16BC00FE8B" target="_blank">kapak sayfası</a>; editöre mektup, yazının elektronik formunu içeren Microsoft Word 2003 ve üzerindeki versiyonları ile yazılmış elektronik dosya ve tüm yazarların imzaladığı <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/E44D323506324194A71D75C397A5352A" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a> eklenerek gönderilmelidir.1. Çalışmalar A4 boyutunda, 12 punto Times New Roman harf karakterleri ve 1,5 satır aralık ölçüsü ile iki yana yaslı olarak hazırlanmalıdır. Dipnotlar aynı sınırlar içerisinde kalınarak 10 punto ile yazılmalıdır.2. Çalışmaların başlıca şu unsurları içermesi gerekmektedir: makalenin yazıldığı dilde başlık, öz ve anahtar kelimeler; İngilizce başlık öz ve anahtar kelimeler; ana metin bölümleri, kaynaklar, tablolar ve şekiller.3. Giriş bölümünden önce çalışmanın kapsamını, amacını ve ulaşılan sonuçları belirten 200-250 kelime aralığında makalenin yazıldığı dilde, 200-250 kelime aralığında İngilizce özet yer almalıdır. Çalışmanın İngilizce başlığı İngilizce özetin üzerinde olmalıdır. Özetlerin altında çalışmanın içeriğini temsil eden, 5 adet makale dilinde, 5 adet İngilizce anahtar kelime yer almalıdır. Yazım dili İngilizce olmayan makalelerde -kısa İngilizce özetin dışında- 600-800 kelime aralığında İngilizce geniş özet bulunmalıdır.4. Araştırma makalesi bölümleri şu şekilde sıralanmalıdır: “Giriş”, “(en az iki) Metin Başlığı”, “Sonuç”, “Kaynaklar”.5. Yayınlanmak üzere gönderilen makaleyle birlikte yazar bilgilerini içeren kapak sayfası gönderilmelidir. Kapak sayfasında, makalenin başlığı, yazar veya yazarların bağlı bulundukları kurum ve unvanları, kendilerine ulaşılabilecek adresler, cep, iş ve faks numaraları, ORCID ve e-posta adresleri yer almalıdır (bkz. Son Kontrol Listesi).6. Dergide yayınlanan yazıların tüm sorumluluğu ve belirtilen görüşler yazarlara aittir; İstanbul Üniversitesi bir sorumluluk yüklenmez.7. Yayın kurulu ve hakem raporları doğrultusunda yazarlardan metin üzerinde bazı düzeltmeler yapmaları istenebilir.8. Dergiye gönderilen çalışmalar yayınlansın veya yayınlanmasın geri gönderilmez.

Yazım Kuralları

Derleme yazıları okuyucular için bir konudaki kaynaklara ulaşmayı kolaylaştıran bir araç olsa da, her zaman orijinal çalışmayı doğru olarak yansıtmaz. Bu yüzden mümkün olduğunca yazarlar orijinal çalışmaları kaynak göstermelidir. Öte yandan, bir konuda çok fazla sayıda orijinal çalışmanın kaynak gösterilmesi yer israfına neden olabilir. Birkaç anahtar orijinal çalışmanın kaynak gösterilmesi genelde uzun listelerle aynı işi görür. Ayrıca günümüzde kaynaklar elektronik versiyonlara eklenebilmekte ve okuyucular elektronik literatür taramalarıyla yayınlara kolaylıkla ulaşabilmektedir.Kabul edilmiş ancak henüz sayıya dahil edilmemiş makaleler Early View olarak yayınlanır. Genel bir kaynaktan elde edilemeyecek temel bir konu olmadıkça “kişisel iletişimlere” atıfta bulunulmamalıdır. Eğer atıfta bulunulursa parantez içinde iletişim kurulan kişinin adı ve iletişimin tarihi belirtilmelidir. Bilimsel makaleler için yazarlar bu kaynaktan yazılı izin ve iletişimin doğruluğunu gösterir belge almalıdır.Referans Stili ve FormatıMakaleler için kullanılacak referans sistemi “Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS) olmalıdır. Ayrıntılı bilgi için: <a href="https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html" target="_blank">https://www.chicagomanualofstyle.org/tools_citationguide/citation-guide-1.html</a>Kaynakların doğruluğundan yazar(lar) sorumludur. Tüm kaynaklar metinde belirtilmelidir. Kaynaklar aşağıdaki örneklerdeki gibi gösterilmelidir.Örnekler:İR: İlk referans, SR: Sonraki referans, K: KaynakçaKitapİR Ayhan Bıçak, Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu (İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2004), 280.SR Bıçak, Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu, 25.K Bıçak, Ayhan. Tarih Felsefesinin Oluşumu. İstanbul: Dergâh Yayınları, 2004.İR J. J. C. Smart ve Bernard Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973), 9.SR Smart ve Williams, Utilitarianism. For and Against, 82.K Smart, J. J. C. ve Williams, Bernard. Utilitarianism. For and Against. Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 1973.İR Stanley M. Honer, Thomas C. Hunt ve Dennis L. Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options (Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co., 1999), 20.SR Honer, Hunt ve Okholm, Invitation to Philosophy, 35.K Honer, Stanley M., Hunt, Thomas C. ve Okholm, Dennis L. Invitation to Philosophy. Issues and Options. Belmont: Wadsworth Pub Co., 1999.İR Frank Cunningham vd., Philosophy: The Big Questions (Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2003), 15.SR Cunningham vd., Philosophy, 30.K Cunningham, Frank, LaLonde, Daniel, Neelin, David ve Peglar, Kenneth. Philosophy: The Big Questions. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars Press, 2003.Soyadı taşımayan yazarlar (örn. Kung Fu Tse) kaynakçada ilk isminin baş harfi altında yazılır. Örneğin Kung Fu Tse, K harfinden kaynakçaya girmelidir. Soyadı almış yazarlar kaynakçaya soyadlarıyla girilir (örn. Popper, Karl).Çeviri KitapİR Nigel Warburton, Felsefe Okuma Rehberi, çev. Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım (İstanbul: Alfa, 2016), 8-9.SR Warburton, Felsefe Okuma Rehberi, 12.K Warburton, Nigel. Felsefe Okuma Rehberi. Çeviren Ahmet Fethi Yıldırım. İstanbul: Alfa, 2016.Hazırlayanı/Derleyeni/Editörü Olan Kitapta Kitap BölümüİR  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.SR Çakmak, “Kader İnsanı Suçla Yargılar: ‘Kader ve Karakter’ Üzerine Değiniler”, 83.K 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.Kitap İçindeki Önsöz, Sunuş, Giriş vb. KısımlarİR Hakkı Hünler ve Solmaz Zelyüt Hünler, Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi adlı kitabına sunuş (İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001), XVII.SR Hünler ve Zelyüt Hünler, sunuş, XVI.K Hünler, Hakkı ve Zelyüt Hünler, Solmaz. Alasdair MacIntyre’ın Ethik’in Kısa Tarihi adlı kitabına sunuş, I-XXIV. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2001.Elektronik Olarak Yayımlanmış KitapİR Benedict de Spinoza, The Ethics [Part I] Erişim 2 Temmuz 2019, http://www.gutenberg.org/9/1/919/, 1.E.2.SR Spinoza, The Ethics [Part I], 1.E.9.K Spinoza, Benedict de. The Ethics [Part I]. Erişim 2 Temmuz 2019. http://www.gutenberg.org/9/1/919/.Online başvurulmuş kitaplar için URL ya da veritabanının adı verilir. Eğer sayfa numarası yoksa, bölüm ya da kısım başlığı referans verilebilir.Telif Dergi MakalesiİR Cengiz Çakmak, “Asadan Böceğe: Politik Yargı ve Felsefe,” Felsefe Arkivi 43 (2015), 17.SR Çakmak, “Asadan Böceğe,” 17-18.K Çakmak, Cengiz. “Asadan Böceğe: Politik Yargı ve Felsefe.” Felsefe Arkivi 43 (2015): 17-23.Çeviri Dergi MakalesiİR Reinhard Kleinknecht, “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı,” çev. M. S. Genç, Kutadgubilig Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 11 (2007), 20.SR Reinhard, Kleinknecht, “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı,” 22.K Kleinknecht, Reinhard. “Olay ve Gerçeklik Zamanı.” Çeviren M. S. Genç. Kutadgubilig Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları Dergisi 11 (2007): 17-44.Elektronik Dergi MakalesiİR Ahmet Emre Dağtaşoğlu, “Antik Yunan Felsefesinde “Fantasia”nın Epistemolojik Rolü,” flsf (Felsefe ve Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi) 17 (2014 Bahar): 266. Erişim 24 Haziran 2019.SR Dağtaşoğlu, “Antik Yunan Felsefesinde,” 266-268.K 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.Online başvurulmuş makaleler için URL ya da veritabanının adı verilir. Eğer mevcutsa DOI (Digital Object Identifier) numarasını belirtin.TezİR Ali Suat Gözcü, “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları”, (Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2016), 28.SR Gözcü, “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları”, 40.K Gözcü, Ali Suat. “Zaman Sorunu: Şimdici ve Ebediyetçi Anlayışları.” Doktora tezi, İstanbul Üniversitesi, 2016.Ansiklopedi MaddesiİR Ahmet Cevizci, “Mutluluk,” Felsefe Sözlüğü, (İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2010), 1130.SR Cevizci, “Mutluluk,” 1131.K Cevizci, Ahmet. “Mutluluk.” Felsefe Sözlüğü: 1130-1131. İstanbul: Paradigma Yayınları, 2010.Kitap TanıtımıİR Aruz İbişi Temelli, “Siyaset Felsefesi,” Kutadgubilig. Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016), 370.SR İbişi Temelli, “Siyaset Felsefesi,” 371.K İbişi Temelli, Arzu. “Siyaset Felsefesi.” Kutadgubilig. Felsefe-Bilim Araştırmaları, 29 (2016): 369-374.Web SitesiİR 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/SR “How Should We Evaluate Deaths?”K 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/Basılı Gazete MakalesiİR Takiyettin Mengüşoğlu, “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan,” Cumhuriyet, 14 Aralık 1971, 2.SR Mengüşoğlu, “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan,” 2.K Mengüşoğlu, Takiyettin. “Eğitimde Tarihi Çevre ve İnsan.” Cumhuriyet, 14 Aralık 1971.Elektronik Gazete HaberiİR “What Consent? Hungary, Poland &amp; Czech Republic Deny Sealing Migrant Deal with Merkel”, Russia Today, 30.06.2018, erişim 30.06.2018). https://www.rt.com/news/431382-hungary-poland-czech-migrants/SR “What Consent?”K “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>

<a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/E44D323506324194A71D75C397A5352A" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/326C5617571F4DC5AD714B16BC00FE8B" target="_blank">Kapak sayfası</a><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/5D842860AD2549CA8827F2BE7FDFA160" target="_blank">Yazar Formu</a>

Aşağıdaki listede eksik olmadığından emin olun: ● Editöre mektup<ul><li>Makalenin türü</li><li>Başka bir dergiye gönderilmemiş olduğu bilgisi</li><li>Sponsor veya ticari bir firma ile ilişkisi (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Kaynakların Chicago Manual of Style’a göre belirtildiği</li><li>İngilizce yönünden kontrolünün yapıldığı</li><li>Yazarlara Bilgide detaylı olarak anlatılan dergi politikalarının gözden geçirildiği</li></ul><a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/E44D323506324194A71D75C397A5352A" target="_blank">Telif Hakkı Anlaşması Formu</a>● Daha önce basılmış materyal (yazı-resim-tablo) kullanılmış ise izin belgesi● <a href="https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/58AC6DC3538B442E88B663120D3D2478" target="_blank">Kapak sayfası</a><ul><li>Makalenin kategorisi</li><li>Türkçe ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Yazarların ismi soyadı, unvanları ve bağlı oldukları kurumlar (üniversite ve fakülte bilgisinden sonra şehir ve ülke bilgisi de yer almalıdır), e-posta adresleri</li><li>Sorumlu yazarın e-posta adresi, açık yazışma adresi, iş telefonu, GSM, faks nosu</li><li>Tüm yazarların ORCID’leri</li></ul>● Makale ana metni<ul><li>Türkçe ve İngilizce başlık</li><li>Özetler: 250 kelime Türkçe, 250 kelime İngilizce ve 600-800 kelimelik İngilizce geniş özet</li><li>Anahtar Kelimeler: 5-10 adet Türkçe ve 5-10 adet İngilizce</li><li>Makale ana metin bölümleri</li><li>Çıkar çatışması (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Finansal destek (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Teşekkür (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Son notlar (varsa belirtiniz)</li><li>Kaynaklar</li><li>Tablolar-Resimler, Şekiller (başlık, tanım ve alt yazılarıyla)</li></ul>

Sayı Türü	Regular
Editör(ler)	Cengiz Çakmak
Kapak (PDF)
Ön Sayfalar (PDF)

Felsefe Arkivi

SAYI 56, 2022

Leibniz’in Erken Dönem Çalışmalarında Hareket ve Süreklilik

Platon’un Ruh (Psykhē) Anlayışı

“Evet, Sokrates!”in Gölgesinde: Elenkhos Üzerine Bir Soruşturma

Davidson’ın Metafor Kuramı Üzerine

Demet Teorisi, Işınlanma Paradoksu ve Zaman Felsefesinde Dört-Boyutçuluk Açısından Bir Yaklaşım

Yapıyı Bükmek: Yapısalcılık ve Postyapısalcılık Ekseninde Jacques Lacan

Akran Anlaşmazlığında Uzlaşımcılık ve Yüksek Düzeyde Gerekçeli İnançlar Problemi

Türkçe Literatürde Carl Schmitt Bibliyografyası

BİLGİ

PAYLAŞ