Hossein Khodadadi

One of the longstanding issues that haunted the minds of many philosophers is our responsibility toward future generations. D. Parfit put forward one of the philosophical arguments that real people cannot be held accountable for the harm caused by their actions. Future people, as long as they have a decent life, cannot complain about a possible catastrophic situation created by the society that lives now, because subject-subject debt relationship can only exist between certain and existing people. D. Parfit’s counterintuitive idea has been challenged by philosophers. In recent literature A. Wrigley sets out to provide a solution to the problem of nonidentity drawing on the D. Lewis’s metaphysics of modality. It is reasoned why the proposal of A. Wrigley cannot solve the problems about non-existent people advanced by D. Parfit.

One of the longstanding issues that haunted the minds of many philosophers is our responsibility toward future generations. However, our crude intuition tells us that we owe many tasks toward next generations and our offspring, this seemingly obvious common-sense view has been disputed seriously and now is a matter of controversy one of the philosophical arguments that most forcefully challenged the intuitively accepted responsibility toward nonexistent people has been developed by Dereck Parfit [8]. According to this argument, the presently existent people cannot be held responsible for harms that are caused by their actions. The reason that future people, so long as they have a life worth living, aren’t morally allowed to complain about their disastrous situation to harmdoer is that right-duty relation can hold merely between determinate and existent people. Parfitt's counterintuitive idea has been challenged by philosophers. In recent literature, Anthony Wrigley [10 & 11) sets out to provide a solution to the problem of nonidentity drawing on the David Lewis’s metaphysics of modality. In this paper, raising three objections, I argue why Wrigley's solution cannot address Parfit's concern about nonexistent people.

Na Metafísica, Aristóteles se debruça sobre a questão fundamental do ser, colocando que a substância primeira é expressamente sinônima de essência. Este artigo examina o critério para essência, partindo das Categorias e do livro Z da Metafísica. O conceito de essência desempenha um papel fundamental no entendimento da estrutura da metafísica aristotélica. Na Metafísica, Aristóteles se debruça sobre a questão fundamental do ser, colocando que a substância primeira é expressamente sinônima de essência. Este artigo examina o critério para essência, partindo das Categorias e do livro Z da Metafísica. Duas perspectivas distintas do essencialismo são analisadas, a saber, essencialismo individual, alinhada com a abordagem modal contemporânea de essência, e essencialismo de tipo. Por meio de uma análise crítica, esse artigo defende que ambos os essencialismos não são suficientes para elucidar o conceito aristotélico de essência. Consequentemente, essa noção fundamental, governada por critérios aristotélicos, continua enigmática, desafiando tentativas contemporâneas a tentarem entender sua complexidade.

The concept of essence holds a pivotal role in unraveling Aristotle’s metaphysical framework. In his exploration of Metaphysics, Aristotle delves into the quest for fundamental being, positing that the primary substance is essentially synonymous with essence. This paper examines the criteria for essence, drawing from both the Categories and Metaphysics Z. Two distinct perspectives on essentialism, namely individual essentialism, aligned with the contemporary modal account of essence, and kind essentialism, are scrutinized. Through a critical analysis, this paper contends that both these essentialist accounts fall short in adequately elucidating the Aristotelian concept of essence. Consequently, this pivotal notion, governed by Aristotelian criteria, remains a perplexing enigma, challenging contemporary attempts to fully grasp its intricacies.

This paper explores applying the truthmaker theory to address the challenge of divine simplicity and its alignment with Ibn Sina’s understanding of divine attributes. It proposes that God’s essence enables the predication of these attributes, eliminating the need for constituent properties. By adopting this approach, meaningful statements about God can be expressed without delving into ontological intricacies. The truthmaker account establishes a direct connection between God’s necessary existence and the truthfulness of statements about Him, overcoming the barrier of ineffability. It offers a robust framework for understanding and expressing the truth of divine attributes while preserving divine simplicity. Ultimately, the truthmaker account provides a compelling resolution to the problem of ineffability in the realm of divine attributes in Ibn Sina’s philosophy.