According to the principle of indifference, we have to attribute equal probabilities to the alternatives that are equally possible. Beyond being intuitive on its own, the principle of indifference plays a significant role in various interpretations of PROBABILITY. Nonetheless, a group of PARADOXES has been found against this principle which seriously challenges its consistency. In this paper, I argue that the rules that M. Baqer Sadr has developed in his “Brief Knowledge” interpretation of PROBABILITY, particularly the governance principle, provide distinctive resources for offering a novel, coherent, and plausible answer to all of these PARADOXES. Consequently, it not only vindicates the principle of indifference from the charge of inconsistency but also lends credence to Sadr’s theory of PROBABILITY.

Logical PARADOXES are self vicious reference sentences that are there lies contradiction in assumption of both its truthfulness and its falsing, hence. For the reason that logical PARADOXES challenge the varacity of the most important theories of logic and philosophy such as statement's ability to truthfulness and falsity the correspondence theory of truth, law of the excluded middle and the system of Aristotelian bivalence, finding a reliable solution for them has always been one of the most important apprehensions of moslem logicians specially in 7 th century and also some western Logicians.So that approximately ten solutions for PARADOXES have been presented by them all of which have been introduced, analyzed and criticized in this article generally. Among the presented solutions, Khaje Nassir and following him, Taftazani and Sadroddin Oashtaki, believing in hierarchy of the statement and discrimination of the statement and predicate or priority and posteriority of the truth, managed to achieve an appropriate solution of PARADOXES. In recent centuries Alfred Tarsky, a western Logician, introduction the hierarchy theory of language has managed to devise a salution for these PARADOXES.But, regarding the possibility of formulating new reinforced assertions of PARADOXES, it seems that none of the stated solutions in this article is acceptable.Therefore, the author suggests that adopting the multivalence system of logic and accepting neither-true, nor - false statements which has been contemplated by some prior theologians and is more adaptable with skeptical ontology of Molla Sadra can be acceptable solution.

Recourse to "sample space" or "attribute space" is a requisite for PROBABILITY calculation in some belief-related philosophical interpretations of PROBABILITY such as classic, logical, and epistemological interpretations. On the basis of the principle of indifference, the PROBABILITY of original elements is assumed equal in such calculations. There are, however, two questions about this principle to be discussed in philosophical debates about PROBABILITY. First, what is the epistemological validity of this principle, and second, how to resolve PARADOXES resulting from applying this principle? None of the questions have met sufficient answers till now. The author, in this article, reviews various interpretations of PROBABILITY in order to show which one of them is in need of this principle. Then he justifies the principle of indifference based on the principle of causality and with reference to knowledge by presence both in epistemological PROBABILITY and in general. The main part of the article deals with eight PARADOXES along with different suggestions for their resolution. The author finds all of them flawed, and suggests a new answer on the basis of an epistemological interpretation of PROBABILITY.

The problem of time travel has been recently dealt by philosophers as well as physicists. In the realm of philosophy, this problem is being discussed in metaphysics as well as the philosophy of action, the philosophy of language and ethics. According to Lewis’ definition, time travel will occur if the traveler’ s personal time differs from the external time in magnitude. Some philosophers have found the idea of time travelling as impossible on the basis of some alleged PARADOXES. In the contrast, some others have tried to solve these proposed PARADOXES and endorsed the possibility of such a travel. In this paper, I examine a group of the most well-known PARADOXES and their proposed solution. These PARADOXES include the “ nowhere paradox” , “ the paradox of discrepancy” , “ the paradox of backward causation” , “ the paradox of changing the past” and so on. Eventually, I propose a new paradox as the paradox of identity. I conclude that in spite of some excellent theoretical efforts in order to solve these PARADOXES, philosophers have much more to do to show the possibility of time travel.

In Sufi terminology, Shat'h is a series of aesthetic words expressed involuntarily by mystics during the mystical experiences. There have been multifarious interpretations and judgments concerning these PARADOXES ranging from linguistic and epistemic interpretations to religious ones. The Sufis and their opponents have also voiced their diametrically opposing views on this issue. The present study addresses the traditional Sufi doctrines as well as what has been suggested about the various aspects of Shat'h including its ambiguity, its relationship to poetry, and its paradoxicality as argued by the contemporaries. The central issue of concern is whether these aesthetic words carry more emotional or epistemic content. Another impetus behind this research is to probe whether the linguistic expression of these words is indeed a representation of a special form of life. A deep understanding of these words requires a certain affinity and empathy with this form of life without which it's hardly possible to see the hidden meanings of the words. Thus, it is argued that the justification of Shat'h is more important than its explanation.

This article is based on a speech delivered by Dr. Rohani in the opening ceremony of a conference entitled "Religion and International Relations" held in the Center for Strategic Research on January 2009.Generally, what is discussed in studying the relationship between religion and international relations is the role of religious beliefs in forming political opinions and in creating incentives for political action by citizens, organizations, states, and leaders at the international level.In his speech, Dr. Rohani addressed various topics including religion and international relations after Renaissance, philosophical explanation of secularism, religion and theories of international relations, political and social consequences of modernization, Iranian example, effects of religion on international relations, imperatives of a religious state in the international system and religion in the process of globalization.He concludes that at the present time, religions have challenged the mainstream paradigms of international relations and have become a factor contributing to resistance against domination.

This article examines Avicenna's response to Kite Fine's PARADOXES about matter and form. He formulates these PARADOXES under the theory of Aristotelian Hylomorphism and analyzes Aristotelian assumptions from their point of view. Avicenna's response to PARADOXES is essential because it identifies the possible advantages and disadvantages of Avicenna's theory. The first paradox concerns the possibility of distinguishing between two objects that have a common form and matter. Fine offers three doctrines to solve the paradox: material migration, common form, and simple composition. Rejection of any doctrine removes the paradox. He pursues solutions by rejecting simple composition. The solutions involve examining the relationship between time index and composition, but Avicenna responds to the first paradox by rejecting the common form. The second paradox concerns the matter variation in an object and maintaining that object's identity over time. According to Fine, the paradox will not be solved if we reject the material migration and the common form. Again, the solution is to abandon the doctrine of simple composition, but Avicenna cannot solve the paradox by rejecting the common form. We examined several different answers from Avicenna's perspective, but we have shown that Avicenna cannot solve the problem.

Objective: The present study was conducted by combining previous research with the aim of providing a comprehensive picture of the PARADOXES arising from pursuing ambidexterity as an organizational strategy. Methodology: The research methodology is qualitative with a meta- synthesis approach. Exploring studies related to ambidexterity PARADOXES, 223 studies were evaluated and finally, after multiple screenings of the studies, 45 articles were selected. Findings: With the help of coding method, 67 codes, 12 concepts and 4 components were identified and validated through Kappa Cohen coefficient. Using seven-step model of Sandelowski and Barroso, the findings of 44 previous studies related to the objectives of the study were reviewed, aggregated, combined and interpreted. Conclusion: According to the results, PARADOXES emerging from pursuing ambidexterity are bundled in four different categories of PARADOXES including PARADOXES resulted from stakeholders’ interest, PARADOXES resulted from control maintenance, PARADOXES resulted from resources limitation, PARADOXES resulted from innovation system inefficiency.