Critical rationalism faces difficulty in Karl Popper’s Socratic formulation: “I may be wrong, and you may be right, and by an effort, we may find the truth.” But the Socratic elenchus, using refutations, can only give us negative knowledge of general principles, which is not the wisdom we seek. Affirmatively, we can only find a collection of opinions to be coherent, which is one of many. Francis Bacon proposed an improved elenchus to find general truths. You must take up a limited topic to study, then cross-examine your evidence for and against its apparent nature. Experiments contrary to evidence and presumed knowledge are entered as self-contradictions in tables of opposition recorded in an “experimental and natural history.” Such an account highlights a challenging puzzle if the account is to be made coherent. With enough problematized evidence, a coherent reading, or a solution of the puzzle, will be unique. Being both coherent and unique, it will be the truth about that limited reality being investigated. Unlike the method of hypothesis (“Anticipating Nature”), deciphering a coherent model is “Interpreting Nature,” allowing us to find a general truth on a limited topic. Isaac Newton achieved great success using Robert Boyle’s mechanistic version of this method. Using the “experimental philosophy,” he discovered general principles of optics and astronomy.

Teacher factors encompass the teachers’ cognitive and affective characteristics that are likely to affect their instructional efficacy. Language teacher immunity is one of the affective factors that determines the teachers’ psychological well-being in their settings. The present study strived to itemize the factors in novice and experienced EFL instructors’ teacher immunity philosophy. To this end, first, the researchers used convenience sampling for selecting 62 EFL teachers including 38 novice and 24 experienced teachers at ten prominent language institutes in Tabriz (Iran) as the participants. Second, they conducted 30-minute interviews with the participants for determining the factors that influenced their TI philosophy using a researcher-developed semi-structured interview protocol. Lastly, they used thematic analysis in order to particularize the main factors in their teacher immunity philosophy. The findings of the study indicated that while the novice teachers considered external support as the main factor in their philosophy, the experienced teachers regarded their internal strength as the decisive factor that influenced their teacher immunity philosophy. The findings may have practical implications for teacher education courses in foreign language contexts.

According to Deleuze, it is an expression of the discipline that connects Spinoza's ontology, epistemology, physics, and ethics. In other words, the logic of expression is the logic that governs all the different areas of Spinoza's philosophy, and for this reason, Deleuze named his most detailed study about Spinoza Expression in Philosophy, Spinoza. In this article, I try to have an overview of this book and while examining each section, the concepts proposed in them and the process of the chapters, how Deleuze identifies the presence of the logic of expression in each aspect of Spinoza's philosophy will also be displayed. In this way, the basic concepts in Deleuze's reading of Spinoza will be revealed. In addition, we will see how immanence is related to expression in ontology, and how Deleuze describes the trinity of essence and its results by identifying two levels of expression, creative nature and created nature, as well as the theory of finite states. With respect to physics, the body is an expression of substance, a mode that is essentially an intensive degree of power. In this way, the triad of mode expression is described. In epistemology, the sufficiency of the true idea implies its expression. In ethics, the issue is about capacity and power, which belongs to the human body and mind, since the mind and body are an expression of essence, and therefore a degree of power.

The present article deals with introducing and critically studying the book Descartes Embodied: Reading Cartesian Philosophy through Cartesian Science by Daniel Garber. Garber, one of the most prominent researchers of modern philosophy and contemporary Descartes-scholar, wrote the book in 1980, and it was published by Cambridge University Press. This work has been released in French, yet there is no Persian translation available. It is a collection of articles written separately by author and published in credible philosophical journals. The unifying subject of the articles is the relationship between Descartes’ philosophical and scientific areas of interest. This article intends to introduce the author and covers the literary style of the book in English in brief. The article mainly addresses the introduction and critical analysis of the book itself, in two parts successively: form and content. This article intends to introduce the author and covers the literary style of the book in English in brief. The article mainly addresses the introduction and critical analysis of the book itself, in two parts successively: form and content.

This article introduces and evaluates Nietzsche and Philosophy by Gilles Deleuze. Deleuze's book, first published in 1962 in France, was later translated into English in 1983. In the 1960s, the book was a reaction to the predominating Hegelianism of France's Alexandre Kojè ve and Jean Hyppolite, and Deleuze attempts to put Nietzsche against Hegel to show that Hegel's philosophy is a philosophy of difference, plurality, and vitality and vitality of life. This book is just like an introduction to all themes of Deleuze's next books. Three thinkers have a central role in Deleuze's thought: Spinoza, Bergson and Nietzsche. If Spinoza is a father, Bergson will be the son and Nietzsche will be the Holy Spirit. But this article, while analyzing Deleuze's philosophy in this book, seeks to demonstrate that Deleuze narrates another form of Hegelian dialectics in Nietzsche's style, and thus Deleuze's does not escape from the Hegelian dialectical thinking.

Our analysis of Popper’s philosophy of science focuses on his concepts of tradition and situational analysis. These concepts represent innovative Popperian contributions to a historical and hermeneutical turn in philosophy of science that most of his critics, especially Kuhn, fail to recognize. According to his historical view, Popper conceives sciences as a complex of traditions in continuous transformation and progress by means of rational discussion of theories. In order to grasp the rational progress of scientific traditions, Popper proposes an original method that he calls “situational analysis”. This hermeneutical method seeks to understand the concepts, hypotheses, actions, practices, controversies and products that scientists made to solve problems in their specific historical contexts to improve the truth content of theories. In addition to his historical and hermeneutical turn, Popper also inquired about the social and political conditions for the progress of scientific traditions by means of intersubjective criticism of theories and conjectures. According to him, the rational discussion of ideas requires, as necessary conditions, plurality of ideas, intellectual humility, and freedom of thought and communication that can only exist in an open and democratic society. With these considerations, we may say that in addition to a historical and hermeneutical turn, Popper also contributed to a social and political turn in the philosophy of science

Addressing the issue of philosophy of war difficult. In the other words, the relationship between Philosophy and war seems to be difficult one. Alexander Moseley is a Political Philosophy Editor for the IEP (Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy and he has lectured on the Philosophy and morality of war at Several British universities. In his book called The Philosophy of War he explained why do humans fight each other? He said “ what I hope to establish in this work is that the Principles of war s origins involve all aspects of our nature, culture, and thinking. We fight because we believe in fighting and our beliefs have to change if we wish to abandon war. The research method in this book and this article is analytical and Philosophical.

Carlo Cellucci has rightly pointed out that contemporary professional academic philosophy has a serious problem of irrelevance. Performance philosophy and public philosophy are two recent attempts to solve that problem and radically transform professional academic philosophy into what I call real philosophy. Nevertheless, performance philosophy and public philosophy have some prima facie problems. My goal in this essay is to make some headway towards solving these two prima facie problems, first, by briefly describing ways of conceptually clarifying and purposively unifying performance philosophy and public philosophy individually; second, by briefly presenting a mediating theoretical and practical framework that could solve the incoherence problem and the two solitudes problem, and also directly and reciprocally connect performance philosophy and public philosophy: a framework I call borderless philosophy; and third and finally, against the backdrop of that mediating framework, in response to a possible objection to my argument, by briefly proposing a way in which performance philosophy, via borderless philosophy, could significantly enrich public philosophy. The upshot is that borderless philosophy, together with performance philosophy and public philosophy, collectively yield a fully adequate solution to the problem of irrelevance.