ʿImād al-Dīn Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373), is an important historian, mufassir, muhaddith and Shāfiʿī jurist who lived in the 8th century. Ibn Kathīr’s work titled Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem, beside its tafsir identity, can be utilized due to its rich ḥadīth content and its comments on isnad and text of the ḥadīths. Ibn Kathīr, due to his competency in history and ḥadīth, analyzed the ḥadīth rigorously and noted any necessary aspect regarding the isnad or the text. In this paper, the analysis (...) and criticism of ḥadīth texts in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is examined. Regarding the analysis aiming to understand the meaning of the ḥadīth, issues such as explanation of unknown words, utilizing the chapter headings, evaluation of all related ḥadīths, comments of previous scholars as well as Ibn Kathīr’s original interpretations are examined. Regarding the criticism of the text, issues such as general criticism under the heading of munkar which indicates a ḥadīth the text of which contains unacceptable meanings, specific criticisms due to conflict with the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, reasoning and historical facts, solutions regarding the ḥadīths which have conflicting meanings are examined. Summary: Ibn Kathīr (d. 774/1373) who lived in the 8th century is a competent scholar in fields such as ḥadīth, history, tafsir and jurisprudence. In this article the criticism and analysis of ḥadīths in the Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem by Ibn Kathīr who is an authority in ḥadīth and history are studied. Although the structure and plan of this book do not give it an appearance of a classic ḥadīth commentary, the rich ḥadīth content which it has, and the examination of this content with respect to isnad and text as in a ḥadīth commentary provide this book a ḥadīth commentary identity besides its tafsir identity. Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is distinguished among other tafsirs by the ḥadīth commentary method and ḥadīth criticism that it employs. This is because it does not only provide ḥadīths as is seen in many other tafsirs, but also informs about the important issues that need to be known about these ḥadīths, and even in many times makes original evaluations. It is possible that Ibn Kathīr provides important evaluations about a ḥadīth which other famous commentators do not provide. He corrects some of the great ḥadīth scholars by showing the presence of isnads for ḥadīths that these scholars think do not exist. With all these aspects, Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem is an invaluable source for both tafsir readers and ḥadīth scholars due to its rich ḥadīth content, the skillful application of ḥadīth methodology and ḥadīth commentary. Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is also an important ḥadīth source due to its very rich ḥadīth content. According to the catalogue at the end of the book, it includes over eight thousand ḥadīths which corresponds to a content similar to that of Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī. Looking at the studies over Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem, it can be said that it has been subject to many examinations with respect to tafsir, however, it has not received the same attention with respect to ḥadīth at a sufficient level. It is aimed in this study on one side to prove the value and originality of Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem as a ḥadīth commentary and on the other side to attract attention to the text criticism activities of ḥadīth scholars by using both specific criteria and concepts such as munkar.In our study the criticism and analysis of ḥadīth texts in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir are studied under various headings. It is quite important to identify possible mistakes in ḥadīth texts as well as to understand the ḥadīth texts correctly. For this purpose the principles of text criticism such as conflict with the Qurʾān, the Sunnah, reasoning and historical facts have been used since the time of the Companions. Ibn Kathīr has approached ḥadīths in view of these text criticism principles and pointed to the mistakes in the texts of the ḥadīths which are in conflict with these principles. Often times, Ibn Kathīr criticized the points in ḥadīth texts which are not in line with the general principles of Islam and which he perceived not appropriate by using the term munkar in a general manner. He utilized this concept explicitly for isnad and text. He always warned the reader against baseless information. Finally, he pointed out to instances which can be determined as a result of the comparison of the various channels of a ḥadīth. Text analyses are efforts to correctly understand the ḥadīth text which enable to clarify the meaning of the ḥadīth. Efforts such as the explanation of the unknown words, the evaluation of all the ḥadīths related to a subject in a unified manner, making use of another ḥadīth in understanding of a ḥadīth, making using of the opinions of the previous ḥadīth scholars and making original interpretations, identification of the unknown persons in the text, making connections with the chapter headings to better understand the meaning, explanations of the contradictions arising from different ḥadīths and collecting different historical ḥadīths in a common theme contribute to a better understanding of the meaning of ḥadīths. It can be seen clearly how Ibn Kathīr applied these text analyses with success through sample ḥadīth texts selected from his tafsir.Two points that we think important are underlined at the end of our study. First, it is the exceptional position of Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem among the Qurʾān tafsirs with respect to ḥadīth content and analysis. When compared with the famous tafsirs that emerge in the tafsir history, Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir is easily distinguished. When the importance of ḥadīth in the Qurʾān tafsir is thought, it is important that the ḥadīth material is filtered with respect to its authenticity and the meaning of the ḥadīth is clarified at a sufficient level. Compared to the limited number of ḥadīths in the famous tafsirs that are used to explain the verses, the rich information with respect to isnad and text in Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem makes significant contribution in the explanation of the verses and provide the reader with valuable ḥadīth knowledge.The second point that we think is important is that the text criticism efforts seen in Tafseer al-Qurʾān al-ʿAẓeem help to correct the opinion that ḥadīth scholars ignored text criticism compared to isnad criticism. In this respect, it is evaluated that our study is a contribution to the recent studies that shed light on the text criticism efforts of the ḥadīth scholars. In this regard, it seems important to make use of a criterion such as “conflict with the inner consistency of a ḥadīth” among other criteria. Moreover, it is pointed out in our study that the munkar concept and the thesis that this concept has been utilized by ḥadīth scholars in text criticism, is a topic which attracted the interest of the researchers and the usage of this concept in Ibn Kathīr’s tafsir contributes to this thesis. (shrink)

This paper discusses several types of relevance criticism within dialogue. Relevance criticism is a way one could or should criticize one's partner's contribution in a conversation as being deficient in respect of conversational coherence. The first section tries to narrow down the scope of the subject to manageable proportions. Attention is given to the distinction between criticism of alleged fallacies within dialogue and such criticism as pertains to argumentative texts. Within dialogue one may distigguish tenability (...) class='Hi'>criticism, connection criticism, and narrow-type relevance criticism. Only the last of these three types of criticism constitutes a charge of fallacy and carries with it a burden of proof. In the second it is observed that a full study of narrow-type relevance criticism would require the construction of complicated, many-layered, dialogue systems. Such a study can, however, be profitably preceded by setting up profiles of dialogue that help us discuss the ins and outs of certain types of move. This is illustrated with an example. (shrink)

A long debate in aesthetics concerns the reasoned nature of criticism. The main questions in the debate are whether criticism is based on (normative) reasons, whether critics communicate reasons for their audience’s responses, and if so, how to understand these critical reasons. I argue that a great obstacle to making any progress in this debate is the deeply engrained assumption, shared by all sides of the debate, that reasons can only be either theoretical reasons (i.e., those that explain (...) what to believe or what propositions are true) or practical reasons (i.e., those that explain what is to be done or what actions are good/required/called for/otherwise worthy of doing). My aims are (1) to put pressure on this assumption that, if there are critical reasons, they must be either theoretical or practical (the EITHER/OR assumption), and (2) to suggest that, if there are critical reasons, the most central among them are neither theoretical nor practical (NEITHER/NOR). (shrink)

Analytic aesthetics has had little to say about academic schools of criticism, such as Freudian, Marxist, feminist, or postcolonial perspectives. Historicists typically view their interpretations as anachronistic; non-historicists assess all interpretations according to formalist criteria. Insofar as these strategies treat these interpretations as on a par, however, they are inadequate. For the theories that ground the interpretations differ in the claims they make about the world. I argue that the interpretations of different critical schools can be evaluated according to (...) the truth or epistemic merit of these claims. (shrink)

Are strangers sincere in their moral praise and criticism? Here we apply signaling theory to argue ceteris paribus moral criticism is more likely sincere than praise; the former tends to be a higher-fidelity signal (in Western societies). To offer an example: emotions are often self-validating as a signal because they're hard to fake. This epistemic insight matters: moral praise and criticism influence moral reputations, and affect whether others will cooperate with us. Though much of this applies to (...) generic praise and criticism too, moral philosophers should value sincere moral praise and moral criticism for several reasons: it (i) offers insight into how others actually view us as moral agents; (ii) offers feedback to help us improve our moral characters; and (iii) encourages some behaviors, and discourages others. And so as moral agents, we should care whether moral praise and moral criticism is sincere. (shrink)

Should we take into account an artist's personal moral failings when appreciating or evaluating the work? In this essay, I seek to expand Berys Gaut's account of ethicism by showing how moral judgment of an artist's private moral actions can figure in one's overall evaluation of their work. To expand Gaut's view, I argue that the artist's personal morality is relevant to our evaluation of their work because we may only come to understand the point of view of the work, (...) and therefore the work's prescribed attitude, by examining the values, attitudes, and behaviors of the artist. This view is defended against a rival account offered by Bernard Wills and Jason Holt, which holds that the artistic evaluation of an artist's work is independent from the moral evaluation of their life except in extreme cases. (shrink)

In this article I examine the relation between the philosophies of Maurice Merleau-Ponty and Gilles Deleuze by looking at the way in which they refer to Henri Bergson’s time theory. Although Merleau-Ponty develops some fundamental Bergsonian insights on the nature of time, he presents himself as a critical reader of the latter. I will show that although Merleau-Ponty’s interpretation of Bergson differs fundamentally from Deleuze’s interpretation, Merleau-Ponty’s “corrections” of Bergson’s theory fit Deleuze’s reading of Bergson very well. This indicates a (...) similarity with respect to what is at stake in the philosophies of Merleau-Ponty and Deleuze. Hence the critical reference that Deleuze makes to Merleau-Ponty’s conception of cinema and thus of movement is not justified, but is the result of a selective and prototypical reading of the early Merleau-Ponty. (shrink)

This study of Hegel and Nietzsche evaluates and compares their work through their common criticism of the metaphysics for operating with conceptual oppositions such as being/becoming and egoism/altruism. Dr Houlgate exposes Nietzsche's critique as employing the distinction of Life and Thought, which itself constitutes a metaphysical dualism of the kind Nietzsche attacks. By comparison Hegel is shown to provide a more profound critique of metaphysical dualism by applying his philosophy of the dialectic, which sees such alleged opposites as defining (...) components of a dynamic. In choosing to study a theme so fundamental to both philosophers' work, Houlgate has established a framework within which to evaluate the Hegel-Nietzsche debate; to make the first full study of Nietzsche's view of Hegel's work; and to compare Nietzsche's Dionysic philosophy with Hegel's dialectical philosophy by focusing on tragedy, a subject central to the philosophy of both. (shrink)

What exactly do we do when we try to make sense of other people e.g. by ascribing mental states like beliefs and desires to them? After a short criticism of Theory-Theory, Interaction Theory and the Narrative Theory of understanding others as well as an extended criticism of the Simulation Theory in Goldman's recent version (2006), we suggest an alternative approach: the Person Model Theory . Person models are the basis for our ability to register and evaluate persons having (...) mental as well as physical properties. We argue that there are two kinds of person models, nonconceptual person schemata and conceptual person images , and both types of models can be developed for individuals as well as for groups. (shrink)

Despite their differences in origin, the three influential schools of twentieth-century continental cultural criticism--the Frankfurt School, existentialism, and poststructuralism--have long been treated as an ensemble and with critical hesitancy. Examining these schools as responses to the apparent collapse of Western civilization in the twentieth-century and as formidable intellectual challenges to the cultural legacies of the Enlightenment, this book provides a productive base for criticism and broadens our understanding of their histories and reception.

Introduction: Fielding Derrida -- Jacques Derrida's early writings : alongside skepticism, phenomenology -- Analytic philosophy, and literary criticism -- Deconstruction as skepticism -- Derrida, Husserl, and the commentators : a developmental approach -- A transcendental sense of death : Derrida and the philosophy of language -- Literary theory's languages : the deconstruction of sense vs. the deconstruction of reference -- Jacques Derrida and the problem of philosophical and political modernity -- Jacob Klein and Jacques Derrida : the problem of (...) modernity -- Jacob Klein and Jacques Derrida : historicism and history in two interpretations of Husserl's late writings -- Derrida's contribution to phenomenology : a problem of no species -- Foretellese : futures of Derrida and Marx. (shrink)

Aristarchus, Harvey, Wegener, Newton and Einstein all made significant scientific progress in which they overturned the thinking of their predecessors. But Popper’s model of conjectures and refutations is a poor guide to fathoming the accomplishment of these scientists. By now we have a better model, which I articulate. From its vantage point, I criticise Popper.

To a superficial consideration, art criticism might appear as a profession of a parasitic nature, nourishing itself on what is produced by others: by artists. In fact, however, the relation between artistic practice and its criticism is more adequately conceived of as a sort of symbiosis. For, while it is true that criticism depends on and presupposes the existence of its objects - that is, works of art - on the other hand nothing would prevent good art (...) from being equated with and contaminated by bad art if critics ceased to draw a distinction between the two. (shrink)

In this paper I present a version of meaning holism proposed by Henry Jackman (1999a, 1999b, 2005 and 2015) entitled "moderate holism". I will argue that this moderate version of holism, in addition to responding to much of the criticism attributed to traditional semantic holism (such as translation, disagreement, change of mind and communication), is also extremely useful to explain the occurrence of several, such as vagueness and polysemy.

Baron d’Holbach was a critic of established religion, or a philosophe, in late 18 th -century France. His work is often perceived as less inventive than the work of other materialist philosophes, such as Helvétius and Diderot. However, I claim that d’Holbach makes an original, unjustly overlooked move in the criticism of religious moral teaching. According to the materialist philosophes, this teaching claims that true happiness is only possible in the afterlife. As an alternative, Helvétius and Diderot offer theories (...) according to which the experience of pleasure constitutes happiness, the end of all human desire. In contemporary terms, these theories would represent psychological hedonism. But, as Diderot himself admits, they have a problem in accounting for why people seem to naturally regard some pleasures as preferable to others. I argue that in response to this challenge, instead of accepting the psychological hedonism of his fellow materialists, d’Holbach shows how one can abstain from reducing happiness to pleasure and yet remain a materialist. (shrink)

The article focuses on an analysis of Hart Crane’s essay “Note on the Paintings of David Siqueiros.” One of Crane’s few art-historical texts, the critical piece in question is first of all a tribute to the American poet’s friend, the Mexican painter David Siqueiros. The author of a portrait of Crane, Siqueiros is a major artist, one of the leading figures that marked the history of Mexican painting in the first half of the twentieth century. While it is interesting to (...) delve into the way Crane approaches painting in general and Siqueiros’ œuvre in particular, an analysis of the essay with which the present article is concerned is also worthwhile for another reason. Like many examples of art criticism—and literary criticism, for that matter—”Note on the Paintings of David Siqueiros” reveals a lot not only about the artist it revolves around, but also about its author, an artist in his own right. In a text written in the last year of his life, Hart Crane therefore voices concerns which have preoccupied him as a poet and which, more importantly, are central to modernist art and literature. (shrink)

This paper attempts to show that mathematical knowledge does not grow by a simple process of accumulation and that it is possible to provide a quasi-empirical (in Lakatos's sense) account of mathematical theories. Arguments supporting the first thesis are based on the study of the changes occurred within Eudidean geometry from the time of Euclid to that of Hilbert; whereas those in favour of the second arise from reflections on the criteria for refutation of mathematical theories.

Abstract: The practice of architectural criticism is supercharged with ethical evaluations. But do they have any bearing on the architectural value of a building? And how are the ethical value of an architectural work and its aesthetic value related? I defend the following answers, which define a version of moderate moralism with respect to architecture: An architectural work will in some cases be (1) architecturally flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has ethical flaws (or merits), (2) (...) aesthetically flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has ethical flaws (or merits), and (3) ethically flawed (or meritorious) due to the fact that it has aesthetic flaws (or merits). (shrink)

This paper discusses Michael Dummett’s criticism of the Neo-Fregean concep- tion of the context principle. I will present four arguments by Dummett that purport to show that the context principle is incompatible with platonism. I discuss and ultimately reject each argument. I will close this paper by identifying what I take to be a deep rooted tension in the Neo-Fregean project which might have motivated Dummett’s opposition to the Neo-Fregean use of the context principle. I argue that this tension (...) does give rise to a legitimate concern, yet it does not affect the Neo-Fregean conception of the context principle. (shrink)

: The 1997 Japanese organ transplantation law is the fruit of a long debate on "brain death" and organ transplantation, which involved the general public and experts in the relevant fields. The aim of this paper is to trace the history of the implementation of the law and to critique the law in terms of its consistency and fairness. The paper argues that the legislation adopts a double standard regarding the role of the family. On the one hand, the legislation (...) overemphasizes the family's authority by granting the family a veto on the matter of organ transplantation, while, on the other hand, not allowing the family to make surrogate decisions. In addition, the role of the law in cases involving minor or incompetent patients is shown to be similarly misguided. The paper argues that accepting a decisive role for the family in current law is compatible with Japanese culture. (shrink)

Distinguished contributors take up eminent scholar Daniel R. Schwarz’s reading of modern fiction and poetry as mediating between human desire and human action. The essayists follow Schwarz’s advice, “always the text, always historicize,” thus making this book relevant to current debates about the relationships between literature, ethics, aesthetics, and historical contexts.

Faith and Criticism addresses a central problem in the church today--the tension between traditionalists and progressives. Traditionalists want above all to hold fast to traditional foundations in belief and ensure that nothing of value is lost, even at the risk of a clash with "modern knowledge." Progressives are concerned above all to proclaim a faith that is credible today, even at the risk of sacrificing some elements of traditional doctrine. They are often locked in uncomprehending conflict. Basil Mitchell argues (...) that, not only in theology but in any other serious intellectual pursuit, faith and criticism are interdependent. A tradition which is not open to criticism will eventually ossify; and without faith in some established tradition criticism has nothing to fasten upon. This interdependence of faith and criticism has implications for society at large. Religious education can be Christian without ceasing to be critical, and a liberal society can espouse Christian values. (shrink)

I am grateful for the attention which Philosophy has given to my little book Essay in Physics . The review by Professor McCrea brings out clearly its essential point, and criticizes it in a manner so wellbalanced and fair, and at the same time so penetrating, that it calls for a reply.

The Knowability Paradox is a logical argument that, starting from the plainly innocent assumption that every true proposition is knowable, reaches the strong conclusion that every true proposition is known; i.e. if there are unknown truths, there are unknowable truths. The paradox has been considered a problem for every theory assuming the Knowability Principle, according to which all truths are knowable and, in particular, for semantic anti-realist theories. A well known criticism to the Knowability Paradox is the so called (...) restriction strategy. It bounds the scope of the universal quantification in (KP) to a set of formulas whose logical form avoids the paradoxical conclusion. Specifically, Tennant suggests to restrict the quantifier in (KP) to propositions whose knowledge is provably inconsistent. He calls them Anti-Cartesian propositions and distinguished them in three kinds. In this paper we will not be concerned with the soundness of the restriction proposal and the criticisms it has received. Rather, we are interested in analyzing the proposed distinction. We argue that Tennant’s distinction is problematic because it is not completely clear, it is not grounded on an adequate logical analysis, and it is incomplete. We suggest an alternative distinction, and we give some reasons for accepting it: it results logically grounded and more complete than Tennant’s one, inclusive of it and independent from non-epistemic notions. (shrink)