Pouya Lotfi Yazdi

In this article, I (hereafter: the writer) will indicate two misunderstandings about the Impossibility of Thinking in the Religious Culture (hereafter: The Impossibility of Thinking or "Emtenae Tafakor"). Also, the writer will argue another note that a true perusal of Aramesh Dustdar's The Impossibility of Thinking could not be comparable with a true understanding of Javad Tabatabai's The Conditions of Impossibility (or "Sharaayete Emtenae") since the former is about the faith and reason in the epistemology of religion, but the latter is about the history of philosophy of social science (Javad Tabatabai claims that The Conditions of Impossibility is an idea in the epistemology of social science). Hence, the last note is that, if this comparison were possible, it seems The Impossibility of Thinking needs to be interpreted in social ontology for this purpose, and then the writer would refuse this interpretation. This last note indicates that Dustdar does not provide an original idea about social ontology, and thus The Impossibility of Thinking does not have a fruitful social dimension.

This article is the result of my doctoral dissertation. In this work, I (hereafter: the writer) consider Aramesh Dustdar's main thesis "Emtenae Tafakor" and give my interpretation of it, "Emtenae Tafakor" is the main content of Dustdar's view on faith and reason in the epistemology of religion. In addition, the writer moves to theocracy and argues that Aramesh Dustdar could not provide attainable ideas and arguments against theocracy in the social and political philosophy. Straightforwardly, the aforementioned claim has been based on a low level of proficiency of Aramesh Dustdar in social and political philosophy and the philosophy of law, and the writer will articulate this claim via some quotations from Aramesh Dustdar’s works and then criticize them.

I (hereafter: the writer) have written this work about the philosophy of theocracy. In this work, the writer proves that theocracy is inherently and utterly an unreasonable and immoral view in political philosophy. The first through the fourth chapters of this work were presented as Ph.D. semester requirements, and the last chapter was finished as an independent work: --- • The first chapter, COVID-19 Proves Theocracy Is False, was presented in Autumn 2020. • The second chapter, W, W, W, We Are Theocracy: Legal Stammer, was completed in Autumn 2020. • The next chapter, Be a Good Person, Not That Theocratic Way, was presented in Spring 2021. • The fourth chapter, The Slap Argument Inclines the Freedom of Religion, was presented in Spring 2021. • The last chapter, What Is Wrong with Secession, was completed in 2019. --- The writer has been working on Eradicating Theocracy Philosophically since 2019, and the writer uploaded early drafts of this work somewhere in 2020 and 2021 corresponding to their presentations; though the last chapter was started in 2017 and was mostly finished in 2019, the writer placed this last chapter somewhere in 2019. --- Noteworthily, we require a work that could eradicate theocracy, but there has been no such work until now, and if we do not consider this work, this aim is at stake.

This work was presented at the Research Center for Philosophy of Science of Ferdowsi University of Mashhad (Iran) – in August 2020. --- Briefly, in the first section of this Persian book, first of all, I (Hereafter: the writer) have presented generalities of Aesthetics and an interpretation of aesthetic universality (Hereafter: φ) and it is argued that each definition of art has to admit φ, and this is a Kantian, minimalist, and subjective view (some others would incline toward an objective interpretation of φ, but it is beyond the purpose of this work). What’s more, this view could be applied to all definitions of art, e.g., Functionalism, Conventionalism, or Hybrid Theories. Additionally, the writer has replied to some objections that would promote definitions of art without φ, but it seems that they could not successfully refute φ, since it appears that φ is a premise in every aesthetic judgment. Next, in another section, the writer has written some primary notes on creativity, which have come from contemporary literature on it, and it is argued that there is a relation between creativity and φ. It is also claimed that the relation is the same φ through the creative processes, creative products, and creative persons, both scientifically and philosophically; and so, the relation represents that φ is true. Besides that, the writer has presented some potential objections to the writer’s view of the relation, and the writer has also replied to those objections. --- In the next section of the book, the writer has applied the φ through creativity to the philosophy of animal-made art, and the writer revolutionarily illustrates that, first of all, the normativity of the philosophy of animal-made art is prior to the descriptive one. Second of all, φ is principally the criterion to know that animal-made art is impossible. The writer’s position recognizes those other works of animal aesthetics, which means aesthetics of all of the non-human creatures on the earth or in the cosmos as a new part of environmental aesthetics, as the marginally second order of animal aesthetics. It is owing to the fact that, first of all, the question, of whether animal-made art is possible or not, is normative. Second of all, if one does not consider the normativity of the question, then one could not get the answer to the nature of it. Next, one could not distinguish between, on the one side, the pleasure of drinking water when one’s thirst may cause death, and on the other side, one’s pleasure of listening to music when there is no urgent necessity for it. The fourth argument is that one needs to identify the normativity of animal-made art because one could generalize aesthetic judgments if one sets φ as the basis of it, and then, one identifies that φ is one of the most fundamental bases in Aesthetics. --- The main section of this book is the writer’s argument—the Animal-Made Art Impossibility Argument—in favor of the impossibility of animal-made art, i.e., Functionalist, Conventionalist, or Hybrid Theories of the definitions of animal-made art, and the writer has replied to some possible ideas and objections to the argument. --- Pouya Lotfi Yazdi --- Iran | June 2022

It is worth mentioning that this book is entitled Metaethics of Golden Rule, which is an academic Persian book of Philosophy, and it stems from my M.A. dissertation: Lotfi Yazdi, Mohammad Reza (2015), Survey of Meta-ethical Foundation of Golden Rule, Tehran: Payame Noor University, M.A. in Ethics (Moral Philosophy). --- I have been working on Golden Rule for ten years, directly and indirectly. It has included an introduction to Metaphilosophy and the generalities of Ethics. In addition, I have presented the following here: 1) My interpretation of Golden Rule; 2) Presenting three arguments for selecting Golden Rule as a deontological normative theory; 3) Arguing that respect is a moral value and then combining respect as a valued content on the three levels of human nature with Golden Rule to resolve ethical dilemmas and improve Golden Rule: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself, respectfully; 4) Understanding Metaethics of Golden Rule with its root in universalizability by 1. Conceptual analysis of Golden Rule and universalizability, then finding and revealing the law of non-contradiction in both of them through a deduction, 2. Arguing that moral reasoning is their connection, 3. Normative universalizability is the same as Golden Rule, and so Golden Rule has been connected to metaethical universalizability by normative universalizability; 5) Presenting an argument that contradicts Relativism and Nihilism with Golden Rule and its metaethical foundation: universalizability; 6) Studying and comparing theories of Moral Metaphysics with Golden Rule and understanding their consistency or inconsistency or neutrality with Golden Rule and its root in universalizability; 7) Studying and presenting an argument that Skepticism is challenged by universalizability and Golden Rule. --- I have published this book owing to two reasons. First and foremost, Iran is one of the most ancient countries regarding Golden Rule and its root in universalizability. Secondly, this book has been written due to my constant moral worries and considerations. --- Pouya Lotfi Yazdi --- Spring 2017